Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TRADE

Return ordered
of Statistics relating to Overseas Trade of the United Kingdom for the year 1982 and for each month during 1982. —[Mr. Newton.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Waterways (Repair and Maintenance)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals have been placed before him by the British Waterways Board in connection with additional investment for repairs and maintenance consequent upon recommendation 1, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the fourth report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, Session 1977–78; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): Since the Fraenkel and Select Committee reports, the British Waterways Board has approached successive Governments for increased grant-aid to deal with the backlog of repairs and maintenance. It has been possible to continue grant-aid at nearly constant real values and it amounts to £28·5 million this financial year.

Mr. Skinner: Has the Minister read the recent statement by the chairman of the Inland Waterways Association that it will he necessary to spend about £120 million to get rid of maintenance arrears? Is the Minister aware that, in real terms, more money was spent in 1978 than is being spent by the Conservative Government? Does he understand that thousands of people, including craftsmen, are out of work and that over 5,000 could be employed repairing and maintaining the canals? May we have an assurance that more money will be given to the inland waterways?

Mr. Shaw: I am aware that the current estimate for the backlog of maintenance is about £120 million. I am also aware of the Select Committee's report of June 1978. However, the hon. Gentleman will recall that the previous Government considered that there could be no commitment to provide large-scale finance for a period of 12 to 15 years. The provision of additional grant is under review.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware that Blisworth tunnel is at the heart of the inland waterways navigational system and that it has remained closed for

more than a year? May we have an undertaking that that key part of the system will be given priority in the programme for the year ahead?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend will recognise that the British Waterways Board determines the priorities that it gives to any individual structure. I agree with my hon. Friend that the closure of the Blisworth tunnel is a major blockage in the system. My right hon. Friend will bear that in mind when considering the review for next year.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that, contrary to what he has just said, the previous Government accepted the Fraenkel commitment to provide £60 million and that the additional funds thus provided were withdrawn immediately the Conservative Government came to office? Will the Minister comment on the most extraordinary auditor's report on a public undertaking that I have read, by Coopers and Lybrand? Is the Minister aware that in the caveat to that report to the Secretary of State the auditors state that they were
unable to assess the sums needed for maintenance and repairs and the inspection of bridges and reservoirs.
The report said that the auditors were unable to assert that the money available was
sufficient to meet the obligations laid on the Board"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member must not quote when asking a question.

Mr. Howell: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I was quoting from the auditors' report.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that, but quotations are allowed only if the right hon. Gentleman is speaking from the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Howell: I shall put the quotation to one side and conclude my question. Is it not a fact that the auditors made it clear in their report that they were not able to provide a true audit because the Government were denying the board the resources to carry out its obligations under the law? Is that not scandalous?

Mr. Shaw: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that at current prices the amount of grant-in-aid to the BWB in 1978–79 was £19·9 million. In 1979–80 it was £22·6 million, in 1980–81 it was £25·4 million and in 1981–82, £28·5 million. So, I dismiss the first accusation.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern that the accountants so heavily qualified the BWB report. For that reason, among many, we have commissioned a firm of consultants to review in their entirety the operations of the BWB and to make a report as soon as possible.

Local Authority Staff

Mr. Dover: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority staff and operatives have been declared compulsorily redundant in the last five years.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): No information is collected centrally on the number of staff made compulsorily redundant, as opposed to natural wastage and voluntary redundancies. However, we believe that there have been only a relatively small number in the overall reduction of 92,000 full and part-time workers since June 1979.

Mr. Dover: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there seems to be one for the private sector and another law for the public sector? Is he aware that there are large engineering, architectural, planning and direct labour staffs throughout the country with little or no work to do? Does he consider that the Government should try to encourage local authorities to offload some of the labour, as will be the case in the private sector?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have been urging local authorities to pay particular attention to those aspects, and in that connection our proposals about the publication of information on manpower have undoubtedly been helpful. I understand the reason why my hon. Friend makes that point. It is true that since the Government came to office we have reduced the central Civil Service by 6·5 per cent., and that in the Department of the Environment by 12 per cent. The current reduction in local government is only 3·2 per cent., and we are looking for a significant improvement on that.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister either give the figures or make an estimate of the figures for the total number of local authority staff five years ago and today? He said that there had been a reduction in local authority staff. Does that refer to last year, and what was the reduction?

Mr. King: The figure that I gave was 92,000 full and part-time workers since June 1979. I would need to check the exact figure for five years ago. When the Government came into office the number of local government employees was at an all-time record level, and it had increased by over 1 million full and part-time workers in the previous 20 years.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), who was in charge of a direct labour scheme, might be telling a different tale if he were still employed in the public sector, as he was before entering Parliament?

Mr. King: With the experience that my hon. Friend brings to the House he is, perhaps, more aware than any other hon. Member of the importance of direct labour organisations being operated efficiently and competitively. There is no justification for such organisations continuing if they are not able to operate competitively and efficiently.

Mr. Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since 1970 local authority manpower has increased by approximately 500,000, and that in the same period the House has enacted over 100 Acts of Parliament which have either amended or increased the duties of local authorities? Does he agree that if we are to get back to the staffing levels of 1970 there is an urgent need for the review or repeal of much of that legislation?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the first actions that we took on coming into office was to make it an absolute requirement that any circular issued to local government should be scrutinised for manpower and financial implications, because not only legislation, but the impact of circulars, can have a major effect on manpower. In that connection, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased about the substantial reduction in circulars, as well as legislation. In their last year of office the previous Government issued 1,800 circulars to local government, and we reduced the figure to 600 in our first year of office.

Mr. Graham: Does the Minister not realise that his pressure in that respect has resulted in a deterioration in local services? Is he aware that in the London borough of Enfield, and in many other London boroughs, staff cuts have led to a reduction in the quality of services in refuse collection, libraries, social services and education? Although the Secretary of State may congratulate Enfield on reducing its overall work force by 2·3 per cent. in the past 12 months, does he not appreciate that Enfield, like many other authorities, is simply putting out more and more work to private contractors and small local firms? Where is the efficiency and saving in that?

Mr. King: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should mention refuse collection as an area where the Government are putting on appalling pressure, leading to dangerous cuts in services. It has become increasingly apparent in the last few years that there are substantial economies to be made—often accompanied by a better standard of service—by the better operation of refuse collection. In many of those areas private contractors have played an outstanding part in ensuring better value for money for the ratepayer.

Local Government Financing

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities and the organisations who have written to him opposing the suggestion for new rating proposals in response to the technical memorandum issued by his Department on 30 September 1981.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about his proposals to change the financing of local government; and if he will list these representations in the Official Report.

Mr. King: My Department has received many representations from local authorities and other bodies about our proposals for new rating procedures—too many to list. While a majority of them expressed opposition to our specific proposals, many representations have urged the Government to take action to reduce the level of rates.

Mr. Spearing: Why has the Minister not mentioned the figures? Will he confirm that the memorandum states that it is up to the Secretary of State to determine the level of spending of local authorities? Is he aware that while the level of local authority expenditure over the last few years has remained more or less the same, Government spending has risen by about 5 per cent? Now that the Government have adopted the maxim "The man in Whitehall knows best", why does he not change his criterion on overspending and allow local authorities to spend up to the 5 per cent. increase of Government expenditure?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's question contained most of the distortions that are prevalent about our proposals, and it is clear that there has been considerable misunderstanding of them. Some of the propaganda that has been issued, much of it at the ratepayers' expense, is a total distortion of what we said. I have with me a leaflet published by a Labour-controlled council, which states:
If you are a housewife you can expect rubbish piling up outside your door because bins may be emptied only twice a month.
That was its interpretation of the measure, and it bears little resemblance to the truth.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister not accept that in Staffordshire the Tory Opposition is in complete agreement with the Labour-controlled county council in its opposition to the proposals because it believes that they will destroy the essence of local government? In view of that all-party opposition, will the Minister now abandon these absurd suggestions?

Mr. King: I am aware that there has been considerable misunderstanding about our proposals, and I am also aware that there are reservations on both sides of the House about certain aspects of them. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I undertook to examine and consider alternative proposals that hon. Members might wish to put forward. We are now considering those suggestions.

Mr. Squire: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the time that they are taking to consider the submissions from both local authorities and Conservative Members? May I continue to assure him that solutions that rely on greater centralisation are unlikely to be the best solutions in the long term?

Mr. King: I am not sure whether I should accept my hon. Friend's congratulations. He will know that my right hon. Friend and I always like to consider these matters carefully before reaching well measured conclusions. I know that my hon. Friend will accept that the proposals that we put before that House did not depend on a central solution to the problems, but, ultimately, left the resolution of them to local people. For that reason, he will understand that. I support his central tack and believe that, as far as it is possible to do so, decisions should be reached locally by local people, who are best able to decide.

Mr. Ennals: Is it not a fact that local authorities, far from misunderstanding the Government's proposals, have understood them very well and, whether they are Tory or Labour-controlled, have opposed them strongly? Is the Minister aware that Norfolk county council almost unanimously rejected the proposals? Is he further aware that representatives of local authorities throughout the country are coming to London tomorrow to express their strong opposition? When will he tell the House that he is withdrawing these absurd proposals?

Mr. King: I do not believe that the proposals were properly understood. I take a measure of responsibility for perhaps failing to explain them as fully and clearly as we should have done. Many of the representations and much of the opposition were based on fundamental misunderstandings.

Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would have been no necessity to publish the technical memorandum if the Labour Party, when in Government, had grasped the nettle after the publication of the Layfield report and undertaken a root-and-branch reform of the rating system? Does he recognise that there is widespread support for a move to iron out anomalies in local government financing by bringing forward rating reform as a matter of considerable parliamentary priority?

Mr. King: I well understand that. The attitude of the Labour Party, if I may coin a mixed metaphor, was to chicken out of grasping the nettle because it was a sacred cow. The attention that has been given to the rating system

and the problems that it poses has been real. As a question that appears later on the Order Paper will elicit, we have proposals that will shortly be put before the House.

Rating Reform (Green Paper)

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his Green Paper on rate reform.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress on his consultation paper, "Alternatives to the Domestic Rating System."

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): A Green Paper on alternatives to domestic rates will be published later this month.

Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how grateful Conservative Members are to him for making that announcement, especially those who have constituencies in Lancashire and whose ratepayers bear an enormous burden because of the supplementary rates that have been levied upon them? Is he further aware that, in addition to that burden, the ratepayers of Preston have had to bear an enormous rate increase since the change in local authority control? Does he realise that the early publication of a Green Paper, with the implications that that has, will be greatly welcomed?

Mr. Heseltine: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I sympathise with the irritation that is felt by ratepayers who have to bear the burden of supplementary rates. I know that my hon. Friend's views will find a wide audience.

Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the inherent unfairness of the rating system has multiplied as rate demands have escalated in recent years? Does he further accept that there are now millions of households that are suffering real hardship in paying their rates and cannot qualify under present legislation for rebates? Will he push forward with determination and confirm the prospect that there will be a great rating reform Bill during the lifetime of this Parliament?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has pointed to the possibility that such a Bill could be introduced in the time scale that we have in mind. I support his view that increasing pressure is being placed on ratepayers. That is happening largely in the areas represented by authorities that are prepared to disregard the burdens that they place on the private sector to protect the over-high levels of expenditure in the public sector.

Mr. Maclennan: Why are the Government proposing to bring forward a Green Paper on domestic rates only? Why are they not taking the opportunity to examine the entire rating structure at the same time?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the challenge of finding alternative taxation to replace the £4·7 billion worth of domestic rating is challenge enough. To add to that the burden of replacing even larger sums from industrial and commercial rating would be a task too large to tackle in the short term.

Mr. Joel Barnett: What is the alternative that the right hon. Gentleman would personally prefer that would hurt no one and raise over ·10 billion, which is the sum now raised by the rating system?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman will know that no Secretary of State has a personal view on these matters. It is for the Government to reach a collective judgment.

Mr. Cormack: Bearing in mind that we have had the Layfield report, how long does my right hon. Friend propose to allow for consultation on the Green Paper?

Mr. Heseltine: When we publish the Green Paper, I hope that we shall look for representations and consultations to end in the early spring.

Improvement Grants (Renovations)

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to increase the number of dwellings renovated with improvement grants.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Housing Act 1980 introduced the improvement-for-sale scheme and made some extremely important changes to the improvement grant system. These included making private and public sector tenants eligible for improvement grants, introducing a new form of repairs grant, and extending the priority rate of grant of up to 90 per cent to all dwellings in major need of improvement. That priority rate of grant of up to 90 per cent. will also be extended as from 1 January to all works required because a person is disabled. I hope that local authorities will give a high priority to improvement grants in the use of their capital allocations and capital receipts.

Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that we could get the construction industry off the floor and reduce unemployment substantially and cheaply if there were a crash programme of improvement work of the sort that took place between 1971–73? Is he further aware that if there were to be any hindrance to such a move after half-past three this afternoon, some of us would take a dim view of it?

Mr. Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend that improvement activity, especially with the additional means that we have provided for financing it, is an extremely cost-effective use of public finance for housing purposes. I remind my hon. Friend that under present legislation the installation of bathrooms and internal WCs is subject to mandatory grants. As a result of the changes in the Housing Act 1980, the grant rate is 75 per cent. and increases to 90 per cent.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister accept that new measures are necessary on improvement grants because of the dramatic decline in improvements under the Government? Will he take the opportunity to apologise to the House for his statement on 11 February, when he boasted that the number of improvements was increasing? On 11 February was he not using completions that were started under the Labour Government? Now that we have the figures of improvements started under this Government, it is clear that there has been a dramatic decline and that the decline will continue unless the Government take some measures to reverse it.

Mr. Stanley: In the 12 months to June 1981 the level of improvements has been higher than for most of the years under the Labour Administration. On the present indications of spend for this year, it seems that a number of local authorities may not be making full use of existing capital allocations and capital receipts. I hope that they will do so.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date he intends to announce the full details of the 1982–83 rate support grant and to communicate these to local authorities.

Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a statement later today, which will make proposals for the main elements of the rate support grant settlement. I will also see today the leaders of the local authority associations. Further proposals on more detailed issues should be made before Christmas.

Mr. Newens: Can the right hon. Gentleman justify the staggering loss of grant that has been suffered by new town local authorities that have taken over their housing assets, as Harlow has? Is there any proposal to make any change in the formula to provide for these authorities? Does he realise the chaos that he is producing by not making clear what resources will be available to all local authorities even for next year?

Mr. Heseltine: I hope very much that if the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience these matters will be rapidly resolved.

Mr. Alexander: Is not the timing this year causing a great deal of uncertainty to local authorities, bearing in mind that at rate-fixing time most authorities will have 10 months or a full year when they will be unable to engage in forward planning? As rent payers must be given four weeks' notice of the intention to increase rents, is not the timing this year entirely unsatisfactory from the point of view of all local authorities?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will understand that I have had an especially complex settlement to determine this year in view of the high levels of overspend in certain authorities. It seemed right to consider the matter carefully before reaching a decision. I hope that the announcements that will be made later today will enable authorities to have a clear picture of what the Government will expect of them. In that context the delays and dates are not that far out of accord with previous practice.

Mr. Kaufman: Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State has created enormous uncertainty among local authorities by his introduction and then his pigeonholing of the Local Government Finance Bill, by his cancellation of the statutory meeting on rate support grant and his intention to hold a non-statutory meeting, by the shambles that he has created as a result of his housing subsidy policy because he cannot relate it to the GREA policy and by the fact that he has not announced the housing investment programme? Surely it is intolerable that local authorities should be plunged into this turmoil because of the right hon. Gentleman's total incompetence.

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman is always seeking alibis for the high-spending authorities that the


Labour Party temporarily represents. If he is able to cast his mind back to the days when he was a Minister in the Department of the Environment, he will recall that these decisions rest upon the Government's public expenditure decisions and not on the individual decisions of the Department. Given the high levels of overspending with which I am faced, the settlement has been especially complex this year. The only alternative would have been to rush forward to impose an unfair burden on the authorities that have been co-operating with me.

Mr. Steen: When my right hon. Friend communicates with Liverpool, will he remember that 350 typists have been on strike for six months, bringing the council's business programme to a halt? Does he agree that those typists should be dismissed and replaced by people who are prepared to work?

Mr. Heseltine: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. A wide number of dispassionate commentators would take the view that, for those who have secure jobs in local government, to prejudice the good working of that city, which contains one of the highest levels of unemployment in the country, is deeply regrettable. However, it would not be appropriate for me to give specific advice on how that should be remedied.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Is the Secretary of State saying that today's statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will transcend and bypass the normal consultations that take place with local authorities regarding the rate support grant settlement? If that is so, is he not also saying that that is another fait accompli forced on local authorities? The right to determine how people who elected the authorities shall live in various facets of life is being completely removed from them.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman disappoints me by the way in which he is being swept away by the prejudices of his own rhetoric. Every Secretary of State has a balance to strike between informing the House and consulting the local authority leaders coincidentally. The proposals are today, as they have been in the past, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his statement and I shall talk to local authority leaders to begin the consultative process, attendant on the figures concerned.

House Building

Mr. Jay: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total of new housing starts in 1948, 1978 and to the nearest convenient date in 1981 at an annual rate.

Mr. Stanley: The figures for England for the respective years are 142,000, 227,000 and, for the first nine months of 1981 expressed as an annual rate, 137,000.

Mr. Jay: Do not those figures conclusively show that we now have the worst Government for 40 years?

Mr. Stanley: When the right hon. Gentleman makes such a comment, he should bear in mind that in 1979, the last year of the allocations by the previous Government, starts in the public sector were the lowest since 1945.

Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have the most negative Opposition for 40 years? Were it not for their blind prejudice and mongrel dogma in opposing the

shorthold provisions of the Housing Act, and were it not for their outright opposition to the short tenancy proposals and their total inability to understand my right hon. Friend's tenants' charter, they would realise that these provisions will do much to relieve homelessness and reduce the number of people waiting for council houses, people who would just as soon rent in the private sector and have the freedom of choice to rent where they want to live?

Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the basic paradoxes of the Opposition is that on the one hand they complain about the insufficiency of starts in the public rented sector, but on the other hand they do all that they can to destroy the privately rented sector.

Local Authorities (Rates)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions he has reached in seeking a revised formula for control of local authority rate fixing procedures.

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what alternatives have been put forward to his proposed referendum on supplementary rates; and if he considers any of these to be a practical means of limiting the increase in the burden of the rates.

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in view of the opposition expressed to the proposals contained in the Local Government Finance Bill, he will now withdraw the Bill.

Mr. King: We are still considering possible alternative approaches in this matter, in accordance with the undertaking that my right hon. Friend and I gave to the House on 12 November. We shall inform the House as soon as possible as to how we intend to proceed.

Mr. Dykes: To which options does my right hon. Friend refer?

Mr. King: My right hon. Friend gave an adequate answer to that question earlier.

Mr. Miller: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the referendum proposal has been dropped or is merely being kept in reserve in case any of the alternatives prove equally unacceptable? Will he bear in mind the need to give reassurance to industry and business that some action will be taken to limit the burden of rates?

Mr. King: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I know that the sentiments that he expresses are echoed widely around the country, particularly in industry and commerce, which have been hard hit by the supplementary rates imposed by a number of new Labour authorities. With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, we shall inform the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Ross: Is it not a fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement this afternoon will increase rates willy-nilly? Will the Minister take some responsibility for that when he talks to industry? Is it not a fact that part I of the Bill is a dead duck, that part III is unnecessary, and that the whole thing should be withdrawn? Both he and the Secretary of State should now put their trust in the local authorities and not continue the totally unnecessary war.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make me trespass on a subject that I have made clear I will not


comment on, and has invited me to comment on another subject that I am unable to comment on—the substance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement. If he is patient, he will find that some of the comments that he made are not entirely justified.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of his hon. Friends would prefer a thoroughgoing reform of the rating system to any of the interim measures contemplated in the Bill?

Mr. King: I well understand that view. My hon. Friend will recognise that a major reform that will require legislation will take time to enact and will involve an interim period. The Government must reach a judgment about the best forms for those interim measures. I hope that the House will support the Government in that.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is it not a fact that part of the problem for the Government is that every solution that they have tackled has not worked out politically satisfactorily? Can the Minister confirm or deny the report in today's Financial Times that the Government have had to abandon a key part of their housing subsidy strategy—for example, the development of local government finance—because a large number of Tory authorities, including the authority in the area represented by his hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, would have been heavily penalised as a consequence?

Mr. King: No, Sir.

National Parks (District Council Representation)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied that the changes made concerning the statutory right of district councils to representations on national park boards and committees are adequate.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of my constituents who live in the Peak District national park think that the board will be no more sensitive to their interests after the change has been made? Why cannot the Peak District national park board be directly elected by those who live in the area?

Mr. Macfarlane: I am aware of my hon. Friend's anxiety about matters that affect his constituency. If he reflected deeply, I believe that he would accept that elections are impractical. Many hon. Members have expressed concern that proper account should be taken of local interests in the administration of our national parks. I am confident that section 46 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act provides for the first time a statutory right of representation on such authorities by district councils. I hope that the local problems to which my hon. Friend referred will be resolved.

Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister accept that, whichever way national park boards and committees are constructed, unless they have the necessary finance they cannot do the job? When does the Minister expect to announce the next financial commitment to the national parks? Will he give the House an assurance that that will be adequate to meet the increasing demands upon the national parks?

Mr. Macfarlane: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his job as shadow spokesman on the Department of the Environment and welcome him to these deliberations. I know that it is not his first time on the Front Bench. The points that he made are matters on which we shall be having consultations progressively over the next few weeks. When any legislation is enacted, there are many things to be ironed out. Those are some of the things that I shall be discussing with the representatives, and my right hon. Friend will also do so.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I acknowledge that the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act have materially helped the situation. Nevertheless, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing mood in some of the national parks that there should be direct representation of district councils on the planning committees of the national parks boards?

Mr. Macfarlane: I am aware of those comments, which have been made in some areas. I am anxious to point out that two-thirds of the members of all national park authorities, whether boards or committees, are appointed by the county councils concerned, and in virtually all cases are democratically elected members of either those councils or the district councils involved.

Council House Building

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses he estimates will be started by 31 December compared with starts in each of the three previous years; and whether he proposes to take any steps to increase this number in the forthcoming year.

Mr. Joseph Dean: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if there are any plans under consideration to increase the public sector building programme in 1982–83; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): In 1978 there were 67,637 local authority starts in England; in 1979, 47,465 and in 1980, 27,925. No estimates have been made of the number of council house starts in 1981 or any future years. Decisions on capital allocations for 1982–83 have yet to be made, and it will then be up to local authorities to decide how much, within their total expenditure allocations, supplemented by their capital receipts, they spend on council house building, and how much on other ways of helping those in housing need.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister reverse these cuts, thereby reducing the present total of 440,000 unemployed in the building, construction and related trades? Are not the overwhelming majority of the 1·4 million families now on the waiting lists entirely dependent on council housing because they cannot afford to buy?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman will have to await announcements on the HIP allocations for next year. A massive public sector house building programme, based on accommodation for rent, may not be the most cost-effective or popular way of tackling the housing problem.

Mr. Dean: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether these questions should have been linked, because one relates only to house building while mine concerns the public sector as a whole.
When considering housing investment programme submissions, will the Minister look sympathetically at the one submitted by Leeds, which now has a waiting list of 30,000? Is he aware that if he does look at it sympathetically, and gives a grant in accordance with the submission, it will result in a substantial cut in unemployment in Leeds, where the position has deteriorated quite alarmingly? In fact, it will give youngsters a chance to be incorporated into real jobs instead of phoney ones under the youth opportunities programme.

Sir George Young: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if, unwittingly, his question has been inappropriately linked. I note that in the first six months of this year the Leeds council had spent only 36 per cent. of its revised allocation for the current year. I hope that there will not be any underspending in Leeds on the HIP allocation.

Mr. Dover: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of his hon. Friends support his view that there are more cost-effective ways of providing housing? Will he confirm that the number of private house building starts has increased in the same three years?

Sir George Young: I note that in September this year the number of starts for new housing and flats was 16,000 compared with 13,000 in the previous year. I confirm that there are other ways of tackling the real problems of those in housing needs—for example, more partnership schemes, more improvement for sale, more low-cost home ownership and greater mobility. One needs a broader range of solutions than the obsession with public sector accommodation for rent.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman ignore his doctrinaire disagreement with public sector housing and admit that the only real way to solve the nation's housing crisis is to build more homes, whether for rent or for sale? Will he also admit that the measures he has just outlined, which provide a small number of dwellings, are only a palliative and that we need a public sector house building programme financed by Government supported moneys?

Sir George Young: I feel that in this policy area the dogma is on the other side of the House. I note with great regret the fact that yesterday the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said that should he ever be returned to office he would cancel the options available to tenants to buy their own homes. I consider that a short-sighted, doctrinaire decision.

Public Expenditure (Housing)

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the light of the reports by the Environment Committee on the impact of public expenditure decisions in the field of housing.

Mr. Stanley: I refer the hon. Member to Cmnd. 8435, published last Friday.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does the Minister consider that the Government's reply to the Select Committee report was a disgrace that should prompt him to consider his resignation? Has he noted the recent report from the Housing Centre Trust? It confirms the Committee's assessment that there will be a shortage of 500,000 homes

by the end of this Parliament. Has he noted the article in The Times yesterday on Shelter's findings, which also endorse the Select Committee's report? Has he also noticed the editorial in The Guardian confirming the views expressed by the Select Committee that the consequences of the Government's failure to respond to the need for housing is creating a potential disaster from which future generations, like the present generation, will suffer?

Mr. Stanley: Our view is that our response to the Select Committee was positive and constructive. We shall see whether the Select Committee as a whole takes the same view as the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Squire: Will my hon. Friend continue to bear in mind the importance of uprating the value of our housing stock? In the context of Government expenditure, will he look in particular at the large number of houses and units that are currently in a state of disrepair and are housing people who expect to be in better accommodation?

Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot anticipate the statement that will be made shortly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. I repeat what I said earlier. During the current financial year I hope that local authorities will make full use of their capital allocations and receipts because, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean), there are indications that a number of authorities may not be making full use of their available resources.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his name and that of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be cursed by present. and future generations of young people on the housing waiting lists as the housing crisis develops during the rest of this decade? Bearing in mind that 300,000 building workers are on the dole, and that thousands of building firms are going into bankruptcy, will he now reverse his policy and again put housing on the map?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman really wants to get additional money into housing, I hope that he will join me in encouraging many Labour authorities to get on with the business of selling houses.

Sports Council

Mr. John Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when next he intends to meet the chairman of the Sports Council.

Mr. Macfarlane: I have met the Sports Council chairman on five occasions, the most recent being on 30 November. I intend to meet him again on 9 December.

Mr. Carlisle: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he discuss with him the provision of sporting facilities for the unemployed? Does he agree that that service might go some way towards combating soccer hooliganism, thereby making England's trip to Spain next summer a little happier?

Mr. Macfarlane: The House may like to know that already the director general and chairman of the Sports Council have given fairly detailed consideration, as has the Central Council of Physical Recreation, to how they can help the unemployed; for example, by encouraging more motivators and initiators. From what I have seen so far in


my travels to five of the regions, I am much impressed by the facilities that local leisure centres are providing for the unemployed. At present, it is pure speculation whether that will have a beneficial effect on how the 0·1 per cent. of our so-called soccer hooligans behave in Spain.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that we entirely endorse the recommendations of the Soccer Council and the comments just made, that the greatest social stresses in our inner cities, particularly in multiracial communities, can be helped and assisted by leadership and recreation and sports facilities? To that end, will he immediately accept the Sports Council's indenture for £2 million to train leaders who would otherwise be unemployed?

Mr. Macfarlane: The right hon. Gentleman has made a series of important points that have embraced much of my dialogue with the chairman of the Sports Council in recent weeks. In addition to the Sports Council's activities, through the urban aid programme and other pump-priming activities, there have been many good examples of how this has been developed. In Merseyside we have introduced the pound-for-pound scheme, announced by my right hon. Friend a few months ago, which has also had a beneficial effect. These are some of the things that are now being embraced by the Sports Council, which is urgently preparing a strategy and role into the 1980s

Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that this is a problem for the local planning authorities that are building huge council housing estates with no sporting facilities? When he visits St. Helens, will he take special note of the New Street, Sutton, council estate, which I believe he is due to inspect? Will he find out why local authorities build hundreds of houses without accompanying outdoor or indoor sporting facilities? Is he aware that if they build indoor sporting facilities, the unemployed will be priced out in any event?

Mr. Macfarlane: I have no immediate plans to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I shall be visiting the North-West fairly frequently over the next few months. This is a question of partnership between the local authorities, the planning authorities, the Sports Council, the regional councils on sport and recreation and the voluntary sector. They must come together to try to put this right. The pound-for-pound scheme in the inner city of Merseyside is designed to deal with some of these problems.

Scarman Report

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to make any change in the policies of his Department in the light of the Scarman report.

Mr. Heseltine: Lord Scarman has made a major contribution to our understanding of inner cities. It is too soon to say what the full impact will be, but I am reconsidering a number of policies in conjunction with the report. First, I am examining the distribution of urban programme resources. Secondly, I am considering how best to involve minority groups in the work of the Merseyside task force and elsewhere. Thirdly, I have been considering the representations made over the last year about my decision to hold back some urban programme

funds from overspending authorities, one of which has recently threatened legal challenge. I have decided that it would now be right to approve new urban programme projects in Lambeth, Hackney and Tower Hamlets.

Mr. Fraser: That sudden change of mind is welcome. I hope that the Secretary of State has taken note of Lord Scarman's description of the very serious housing problem in Lambeth and the other problems faced there. Will he restore the £2½ million that he has taken away from Lambeth in penalties, as well as the cuts in the housing investment programme? If he had continued cutting the moneys of sick and hard-pressed authorities such as Lambeth, we might have thought that he was engaging in a form of municipal euthanasia.

Mr. Heseltine: I am aware of the comments made in Lord Scarman's report. Lambeth council will be able to proceed with its package of environmental improvement schemes for Brixton under the partnership programme. The rest of the question is a matter for detailed discussion with the authority concerned.

Mr. Steen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the major inner city needs is to involve the people in the decision-making process, and that they should decide how the money is spent and how they should work out their problems?

Mr. Heseltine: By his commitment to that aspect of inner city life, my hon. Friend has shown a significant way forward. I am much in sympathy with what he says, although in the end it will not be a possible avenue simply to abdicate from central Government or local authority decision making. However, we should, of course, seek to involve local people as much as possible.

Mr. Alton: Is the Secretary of State, from the Olympian heights of his Atlantic Tower hotel room, unable to do better than provide a bit of the Tate gallery or to talk about festivals for Merseyside? If he cannot do better than that or provide some of the housing money required to tackle improvement—[Interruption.] Is it not entirely missing the point to talk about the rights of minorities without saying what he will do to exert pressure on the Home Secretary to change the procedure for complaints against the police? I believe that that is to miss the point entirely. Will he assure the House — [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Heseltine.

Mr. Heseltine: The one thing that the whole House can recognise and sympathise with in the hon. Member's question are the words "missed the point entirely", which he, uniquely, does so well.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Minister agree that Lord Scarman's recommendations are a positive discrimination towards the black community? Does he agree that that means more public expenditure in inner city areas, in places such as Toxteth in Merseyside, and Brixton in Lambeth? Will he therefore restore to the local authorities all the moneys covering the inner city areas that he has taken away from them in the rate support grant cuts?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that before he advocates further public expenditure the hon. Member will want to ask how many of the existing public sector programmmes are recruiting their fair proportion of ethnic minorities.

Mr. Stokes: Would it not be utterly deplorable if Government money were to be spent only on areas where there have been serious riots? What about the rest of the United Kingdom, which, with its unemployment, has been law abiding? Why is there concern only with violence? Is that not utter cant?

Mr. Heseltine: I fully suppport my hon. Friend's view that it must not be a question of spending money only in areas where there were riots. One of the points that I made clear as a result of my appointment to Merseyside was that I am considering the whole community, and not one part of it.

Council House Sales

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council house sales to council tenants have been completed since the present legislation came into effect.

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the latest figures of sales of council houses to sitting tenants under right-to-buy provisions.

Mr. Stanley: In the nine months to the end of June 1981 local authorities in England sold 46,500 council dwellings, mostly to sitting council tenants, of whch an estimated 11,300 were completed under the right-to-buy provisions.

Mr. Shepherd: The figures are very encouraging, but is my hon. Friend aware that the city of Hereford has been selling council houses for about 30 years? If the same criteria are adopted this year as were adopted last year for establishing grant-related expenditure, Hereford city council would be seriously penalised. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that that will be taken into account and that council house rents or rates in Hereford will not be forced to rise as a result of that authority having followed Government policies?

Mr. Stanley: I assure my hon. Friend that we have given detailed consideration to the make-up of the various grant-related expenditures, including the housing GRE, but I cannot now anticipate the proposals that my right hon. Friend will shortly be putting out to consultation.

Mr. Colvin: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, but has he seen reports in the press today that a future Labour Government would not only deprive council tenants of their right to buy their homes, but would cancel options granted to them during periods of Conservative Government? Will he comment on that?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for the vigorous and strenuous way in which he has been upholding the right to buy of Bristol council tenants. The statement made by the Labour Party yesterday was a legal and constitutional monstrosity. It represented a disgraceful commitment to tear up existing contractual options, and an equally disgraceful commitment to impose retrospectively, on council tenants who had already bought, a right of the local authority to buy back.
The one good thing about yesterday's Labour Party statement is that it puts beyond doubt the fact that the Labour Party will be totally rejected by the electorate at the next election.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that all over the country, as a consequence of his policies, there are empty council houses awaiting purchasers? They stand empty month after month and are an affront to the thousands of people on housing waiting lists.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member will find that the great majority of empty local authority dwellings are in the areas of Labour-controlled councils. As far as the hon. Member's general point is concerned, the effect over the country as a whole is that many tens of thousands of people have been given their first opportunity to obtain home ownership. Had it not been for this Government, they would not have had it.

Sir William Clark: As many housing officers throughout the country do not have sales expertise when selling council houses, does my hon. Friend agree that it would probably accelerate the sale of council houses if their sale were given to private enterprise?

Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend will be aware, we are encouraging local authorities, where they wish, to utilise the services of private surveyors and private solicitors in expediting the sale of council houses. I am glad to say that at least some authorities are doing so.

Mr. Allen McKay: Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents want a house and cannot get one because of the Government's policies? How many houses does he expect to build after existing council houses have been sold under the current procedure?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Member is concerned about making more council houses available, and more accommodation available for rent, I hope that he will encourage the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) to withdraw his monstrous commitment to repeal shorthold.

Airey Houses

Mr. Bendall: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what problems have arisen over the construction of Airey houses; when the problem was first discovered; and what assistance and advice his Department has given to housing authorities and others on the matter.

Sir George Young: In some Airey houses corrosion has occurred in the steel reinforcement of the concrete columns forming part of the walls. The fact that there was a potentially serious problem first came to my Department's notice last December. After detailed investigations the Department wrote to all local authorities in May giving advice on methods of inspection and asking them to warn private owners and prospective purchasers of the possible presence of structural defects and of the need to obtain expert advice. The Building Research Establishment held a technical seminar for local authorities and others last month.

Mr. Bendall: Does my hon. Friend understand that the matter originally came to light in Barnsley in 1978, when the Building Research Establishment was called in? Why did it take so long from then until early this year to get the information out to other local authorities?

Sir George Young: There is no record of the Building Research Establishment having been involved in that year.


It first became involved in December 1980 after the matter came to the attention of my Department as a result of councillors and local residents writing to it.

Consultative Council on Local Government Finance (Meeting)

Mr. Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why the statutory meeting of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance scheduled for 20 November, in order to give details of the 1982–83 rate support grant settlement, was cancelled.

Mr. King: The meeting was cancelled because the details were not available at the time of the meeting.

Mr. Stoddart: I must confess that I hardly heard the reply, but, quite obviously, as it came from the right hon. Gentleman, it must be completely unsatisfactory. I do not know whether it confirms the arrogance that has been shown this afternoon, but it seems to show that the Government's policy in relation to local government and local government finance is in complete and utter chaos, which is exactly what the Government are in altogether.

Mr. King: I am not sure to what I am supposed to respond. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on letting his prejudices leak out so publicly. The reasons for the answer that I gave will be apparent very shortly.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Speaker: The Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does the point of order relate to the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that will follow?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be more convenient for the House and for all who will consider the discussion this afternoon if the written text from which the Chancellor is about to make his statement were available to Members before he made it? I have just inquired at the Vote Office and discovered that the statement is not yet available. Consequently, hon. Members must consider the Chancellor's statement solely on the basis of what they hear from him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has been the custom, as the hon. Gentleman knows, for a very long time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will now make his statement.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government decisions on public expenditure in 1982–83 and on the future pattern of national insurance contributions for next year on the basis of the Government Actuary's report which is being laid before the House tomorrow. In each case the proposals follow the annual reviews which take place at this time of year. They will take effect not in this financial year but in the next one, 1982–83.
I am also publishing today, as required by the Industry Act 1975, the forecast of economic prospects for 1982. Eighteen months ago the annual increase in the retail price index was 22 per cent. and a year ago 15 per cent. It is now about 12 per cent. Over the next year we expect a further reduction to about 10 per cent. Output is expected to rise by about 1 per cent., and manufacturing output rather more rapidly. The outlook, in short, is for gradual recovery.  [Laughter.]
As I told the House in my Budget Statement, we are no longer planning public expenditure in volume terms but in cash. The plans for next year, which appeared in the last White Paper in volume terms, had therefore to be revalued in cash. On that basis the starting point for discussions about 1982–83 was a cash total of £110 billion.
The net result of the decisions that I am announcing today will be to raise that figure by almost £5 billion, to bring the planning total for next year to about £115 billion. The exact total for next year will depend upon decisions that cannot be taken yet about the appropriate provision for certain demand-determined programmes and for the contingency reserve.
At the time of the Budget we expected cash expenditure in 1982–83 to grow more slowly than we now envisage. We now believe it appropriate to increase the planned provision for certain programmes to reflect changed circumstances.
It is too early to judge with precision what those changes will mean for next year's PSBR. On the basis of the conventional assumptions set out in the Industry Act forecast there is no present reason to depart from the projections published at the time of the previous Budget.
I shall, of course, have to take all the relevant factors into account when the time comes for framing next year's Budget.
I shall inform the House now about some of the main changes. Increases in programmes—whether on account of policy or of changed demands—amount to about £6 billion, but we have made offsetting reductions in previous plans of over £1 billion. Those restrict the net increase to the figure of £5 billion that I have already mentioned.
The administrative costs of central Government are not far short of 10 per cent. of total public expenditure. We are determined to reduce that proportion and maintain the drive for more efficient management throughout the public sector. Our spending plans provide broadly for increases of 4 per cent. in the total sums available for the pay of public servants from next settlement dates. The provision for administrative costs will be further reduced by the impact of a general reduction of at least 2 per cent. in all cash-limited expenditure. That will involve economies in the cost of maintenance and improvement of Government buildings as well as in manpower and ancillary services. We shall continue to reduce Civil Service numbers so as to maintain progress towards our aim to have 102,000 fewer staff in post in April 1984 than when the Government came into office.
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales are about to undertake consultations with the local authority associations on the increase in local housing income, including rents to be assumed for grant and subsidy purposes. Subject to those consultations and to the contribution of our successful policy for increasing council house sales, we hope to be able to maintain activity on public housing construction and improvement at approximately the same level as this year.
There will be some reductions in the cash provision for some other capital programmes including those for water services, motorways and trunk roads, and certain local authority services. There has, however, been a substantial fall in tender prices. Because of that, there should be no significant impact on our published plans for water services, motorways and trunk roads.
Our cash provision will again allow continued growth in the National Health Service. More of the cost of the health services will be financed by contributions and charges. We shall be increasing the Health Service contribution by 0·1 per cent. The full present range of exemptions from charging remains unchanged. Two out of every three prescriptions will continue to be provided free of charge. Where a charge is payable, it will be raised to £1·30. There will also be increases in charges for dental and ophthalmic services. Further details will be placed in the Vote Office today and given in the Official Report by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
The increase in student grants for the next academic year will be 4 per cent. in line with the pay increases broadly envisaged for employees in the public services. The parental contribution scale will remain unchanged, but the minimum award will be kept at the present cash level.
I turn now to national insurance and other social security payments. Those benefits will be uprated in line with the forecast movement in prices from November 1981


to November 1982. As is customary, the announcement of the forecast of the movement of prices and the consequent changes in benefit rates will be made next spring.
The House will know that the increase in the RPI to November 1981 will probably be some 2 per cent. higher than the 10 per cent. increase allowed for when calculating this year's uprating. For retirement pensions and other long-term benefits, the shortfall will be made good in the November 1982 uprating. We shall thus continue to fulfil our pledge to retirement pensioners that they will be fully protected against inflation. In the case of the short-term benefits, however, next year's increase will be equal to the expected increase in the retail price index during the next 12 months.
All in all, we are planning to spend very substantial extra sums of money next year on social security. The great bulk of this is on pensions, which alone will cost the fund nearly £1·5 billion more next year than this. Expenditure on other benefits and outgoings is also expected to increase, in part due to a further small rise in unemployment—an assumption which is reflected in the Government Actuary's report. These increases, together with the slower rate of growth in contribution income, would mean that if we took no action on contributions, there would be substantial deficits in the national insurance and redundancy funds. Those deficits must be financed. In addition, as I have said, we have decided to propose an increase of 0·1 per cent. in the allocation to the National Health Service. The taxpayers contribution to the fund—the so-called Treasury supplement—will at the same time be reduced by 1½ per cent.
In view of the burdens of national insurance on employers, the Government think it right that the greater part of the increase in contributions should come from employees. It is, moreover, right that those in work should shoulder the additional costs. We therefore propose that the rate of contributions for employees should be raised by 1 per cent. from the beginning of April next—it would then be 8·75 per cent. of relevant earnings. There will be some increase for the self-employed. The percentage rate for employers will not be changed.
The lower earnings limit, which sets the starting point of the contributions, will be increased to £29·50 per week, in line with the single rate retirement pension. The upper earnings limit, which sets the ceiling up to which payments are made proportionate to income, will be increased to £220 per week, within the normal criteria. The House will appreciate that, although the percentage rates charged to employers will not be changed, the cash amount which they pay in national insurance contributions and national insurance surcharge will rise in line with any increase in the wages and salaries which they pay, and also as a result of the increase in the upper earnings limit. The amount which employees pay in contributions will be similarly affected, as well as by changes in their contribution rates.
The increase in contribution rates, as well as the decision to exempt employers from it, both in respect of the redundancy fund and in respect of national insurance, will require legislation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will give notice of the necessary Bill today. On presentation of the Bill tomorrow, he will lay before the House the Government Actuary's report. He will also make available in the Vote

Office today, and in the Offical Report, a statement of the assumptions used by the Government Actuary, full details of the changes in rates and limits for all classes of contributors, including the self-employed, and a table showing a breakdown of total payments in 1982–83 compared with 1981–82.
I turn now to other areas where spending next year is to rise. The increases have been concentrated in four main areas—local government, nationalised industries, defence and employment measures.
Local authorities are likely to overspend substantially this year. We recognise that it would not be practicable to eliminate that overspend in a single year. We therefore propose to allow an increase in the programmes for local authority current expenditure in 1982–83 of some £1,350 million. That will provide authorities with a reasonable target. They will still be required to make substantial economies.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment proposes to provide a level of grant support for local authorities in England of 56 per cent. My right hon. Friends will be consulting local authorities about that and about commensurate provision in Scotland and Wales.
The nationalised industries' total bids for increased external finance amounted to about £2½ billion. That would have been in addition to the nearly £1½ billion already provided in the plans. We have decided to allow them about half their new bids, some £1,300 million in total. Nevertheless, if, as the Government and the House very clearly expect, they continue their drive to contain current costs, both by increasing efficiency and by making moderate pay settlements, they should be able to maintain their aggregate capital investment programme at much the same level as was envisaged in the plans published last March, a level 15 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1980–81.
In order to enable us to carry through the policies set out in the June Defence White Paper we are increasing the provision for defence next year by a further £480 million. That includes the cost of carrying forward the 1981 Armed Forces pay award.
Improvements to the various special employment programmes were announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 27 July. Those added some £650 million to public expenditure next year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be making an announcement on further training measures in due course. In all, nearly £800 million will be added to the employment programme next year, already planned at nearly £2 billion. A substantial proportion of that additional spending will go to help the young unemployed.
I am circulating in the Official Report a summary of the changes for 1982–83 in the cash allocation to Departments and in the external financing limits for nationalised industries. Full details of our new plans for 1982–83, and the two following years, will be set out in the public expenditure White Paper to be published at the time of the Budget.
I am sure that the House will want an early opportunity to discuss the public expenditure plans I have announced this afternoon. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House hopes to arrange a debate on that next week.

Mr. Peter Shore: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will understand that after two and a half


years of unique and spectacular failure in his management of the British economy, the House had only minimum expectations of his statement today. For "learn nothing" incompetence, continued unnecessary damage to the economy and sheer wanton damage inflicted upon most of the nation and all the unemployed, he has reached a new low in this abysmal statement.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of gradual recovery, and he got the horse laugh that he richly deserved. Is he aware that the 1 per cent. growth in gross domestic product that he envisaged in his economic forecast would have to be sustained for the next eight years—until the year 1990—before the national output of wealth equalled what it was when he took power two and a half years ago?
The Opposition expect a full debate in Government time at an early date. Meanwhile, I have six questions—[Interruption.] It was a long statement, and I am entitled to put my questions to the Chancellor—however embarrassing he may find it to answer them. Once again, public expenditure will overrun this year. First, is not the reason for the increase to be found in the continued and worsening effects of unemployment—including cash payments, lost revenue and subsidies to publicly owned industries—that his budgetary, monetary and exchange rate policies have inflicted upon us?
Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about a £5 billion increase in public expenditure for 1982–83. Is it not true that whether that public expenditure plan means an increase or decrease in real public expenditure, depends entirely upon how much prices rise next year? Even if they were to rise by the Treasury's overoptimistic assumption of 7 per cent., the figures would provide for only a tiny increase in public expenditure. If they rise, as the forecast itself indicates, by 10 per cent., the plans amount to an absolute cut, yet again, in real public spending. With that will come all the deflationary effects that we have already seen.
Thirdly, is it not disgraceful that, having created an additional 1·6 million unemployed—700,000 since last November's mini-Budget—the Chancellor should yet again savage his victims? Is he not aware that unemployment pay was cut by 5 per cent. last year, that earnings-related benefits ceased by his decision this month, and that, as with all social security incomes, the unemployed will be underpaid by 2 per cent. for a whole year owing to the miscalculation of the current year's inflation rate? Now, on top of this, he has decided—although it is buried in obscure text—to cut benefit for the unemployed and other short-term supplementary benefit recipients by a further 2 per cent. by failing to compensate for this year's inflation. This will mean that the average family man receiving unemployment benefit will be about £13 a week less well off than he would have been if the arrangements pertaining in May 1979 were continuing today.
Fourthly, will the Chancellor confirm that the proposed increase in council rents, of which we have had considerable leakage, is about £2·50 a week, and that if he pursues that figure with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Government will have succeeded in doubling council house rents within three years?

Mr. Frank Allaun: More than that.

Mr. Shore: I always err on the side of understatement. By cutting the percentage grant to local authorities from 59 per cent. to 56 per cent., the Chancellor has inflicted on all ratepayers a certain increase of at least 10 per cent. in addition to essential increases to meet inflation and to maintain services.
Has it not occurred to the Chancellor and his colleagues that these increases in rents, rates, and prescription, dental and other charges, together with the reduced payments for the unemployed, seem almost designed to exacerbate social and other problems, particularly in inner city areas whose intense stresses and strains were reported upon by Lord Scarman only last week?
Fifthly, what justification is there for yet another 1·1 per cent. increase in national insurance and health contributions? The Chancellor must know full well that national insurance is a far more regressive tax than income tax and will remain so in spite of his raising of the contribution ceiling. Of course, we accept that those at work have a responsibility to assist, by means of taxation, those who, through age, disablement, sickness or unemployment, are unable to provide for themselves. But have not the Government a responsibility, too—first, to reduce the number of unemployed rather than actively to increase it, and, secondly, to make their own proper contribution to the national insurance fund, which was cut substantially exactly a year ago and which is again to be cut today? Exactly what will be the cash increase in national insurance contributions now to be paid by employers in the year 1982–83?
Sixthly, I come to the absurd and damaging targets in the medium-term financial strategy—which, incidentally, I totally reject. Is it not clear that, by their own lights, the Government have failed and are failing on public expenditure, on the public sector borrowing requirement, on the money supply, and on inflation? So will the Chancellor now, at long last, accept that the whole ghastly experiment which his monetarist policies have inflicted upon this country has been a disastrous failure, that he has played the part of principal gravedigger for the British economy, and that a major reversal of policy is now, in the national interest, desperately needed?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall deal with the right hon. Gentleman's questions in turn. It is too early to be certain yet, at this stage of the year, what the outturn for public expenditure in this year is likely to be, but the present estimate is that it may be about £107 billion, which represents an effective increase of about £2 billion over the plans published at the time of the Budget. Within those spending programmes, cash limited programmes generally are being held and the great majority of other increases are being met from within the contingency reserve. The largest part of the £2 billion increase, some two-thirds of the total, is due to increased expenditure by local government, which is one of the reasons for the measures introduced before the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
As regards the likely size of public spending next year, the best judgment at this stage is that it is likely to be about the same next year as this year, stated in cost terms.
As regards the changes in benefit levels, in relation to the unemployed in particular, the House will bear in mind that at the same time as we are considering the appropriate level for these benefits, we must take account of the fact that many people still in work—in order, very wisely, to


protect their employment and to improve the prospects of their employers—are having to accept wage increases significantly below the rate of increase in inflation. In those circumstances, it is right that the increase in the level of benefits provided for the unemployed and in other short-term benefits should be confined to matching it against the expected increase in inflation.
I remind the House that retirement pensioners and others on long-term benefits will continue to be fully protected against price inflation.
As regards local authority rents, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales will be consulting the local authority associations on a proposal that local authorities' reckonable income, including rents, for housing subsidy purposes, should be assumed to increase by a flat rate of £250 per dwelling per week. The exact figure will depend upon the results of that consultation and will vary from authority to authority. The figure reflects the view of the Secretaries of State of the increase required in the light of the factors which are set out in the consultation document which they will issue later today. Among these are the fact that almost half of council house tenants receive help with their rents from rebates or supplementary benefit, and the fact that the average level of council house rents today represents no more than 7 per cent. of average earnings.
I come to the rate support grant. It is important for the sake of the economy as a whole, and as the House would wish, to ensure proper and effective control of the size and rate of growth of expenditure by local authorities. As I have already said, some two-thirds of this year's expected increase over the Budget figures is likely to be attributable to over-expenditure by local authorities. We are making provision next year for some £1·35 billion additional expenditure by local authorities. In those circumstances, the rate support grant provision proposed by my right hon. Friend is not unreasonable.
As regards national insurance contributions, it is entirely right that at times when the number of people out of work, as the House well knows, has been rising, the increase in the contributions necessary to maintain the national insurance and redundancy funds in the right position should be placed upon those who are at work. That is our proposal.
The right hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood one of the figures that I gave. The total increase is not 1·1 per cent. The total increase in national insurance contributions is 1 per cent., including the 0·1 per cent. additional contribution to the National Health Service.
As regards additional payments from employers, there will be some increase in the amounts payable by employers as a result of the increase in the upper earnings limit. The increase in national insurance contributions payable by employers will be £140 million, and that for the national insurance surcharge will be £47 million. Those, as I say, arise as a result of the changes in the upper earnings limit. Other changes will take place, in the ordinary way, as a result of changes in the earnings and wages payable by employers, and, on the expectation underlying the figures in that respect, it is likely that national insurance contributions will rise by £512 million and the national insurance surcharge by £225 million—a total of £737 million. I emphasise, however, that those

latter figures are the figures which follow from the increase in wages and salaries that is in any event taking place.
Finally, I come to the rhetoric with which the right hon. Gentleman began and ended his questions. I reject absolutely the suggestion that this represents any departure from the Government's economic strategy. All that it represents—[Interruption.] The decisions that I have announced are necessary to maintain the framework for developing growth along the lines indicated at the beginning of my statement.

Mr. Shore: I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having come clean on several points. It is helpful for the House to know what the basis of rents will be and to know the answer in relation to the increase for employers in national insurance contributions.
I shall press the right hon. and learned Gentleman on two points. First, will he confirm that in real terms he is planning a reduction in public expenditure next year? The 10 per cent. increase in inflation that is forecast must bring that about, if the figures that he has given are correct. Secondly, will he tell the House—there is no reason why he should not—what the average increase in rates will be as a result of the reduction in the percentage grant?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In replying to the point about the likely outlook for the economy, I shall take into account the two components affecting increases in public expenditure. I refer to the likely increase in public expenditure on goods and services and to the planned increase in public expenditure on pay in the public services. I shall repeat the answer that I have already given the right hon. Gentleman. Next year, public expenditure is likely to be about the same as public expenditure in the present year, in cost terms. Rate increases and the levels of rates are very much within the control of local authorities. [Interruption.] This year, as in all other years, there have been wide variations in the level of rate increases proposed. They take account of the substantial increases in expenditure which are incurred, in particular, by Labour-controlled authorities. It is noteworthy that the rate increases proposed by Labour-controlled authorities are generally far in excess of those proposed by Conservative-controlled authorities. There is no reason to expect extravagant rate increases this year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The answer lies—as it should lie and as the House would wish it to lie—in the hands of local authorities.

Mr. Edward du Cann: To bring some new hope to our people at a time of world recession, will my right hon. and learned Friend put the great resources of the Treasury and those of the Department of Industry behind the idea of facilitating a programme of public works, privately financed, such as the Severn barrage, the Channel link and so on? There is a long list of such projects. To assist my right hon. and learned Friend in his maintained objective of controlling public expenditure—which is so difficult to achieve—will he now allow the Comptroller and Auditor General access, for audit purposes, to the 50 per cent. of public expenditure to which he is currently denied access and encourage, in particular, the development of the value-for money audit? That is what is needed.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I accept the importance of the last point which my right hon. Friend made. The House


debated such matters on Monday. We shall bring forward further proposals to increase the effectiveness of supervision, on behalf of this House, of public expenditure throughout the public sector. My right hon. Friend drew attention to capital programmes. However, as I said in the statement, the arrangements being made for local authority housing and in relation to other aspects of local authority capital expenditure—taking into account on the one hand increased receipts from council house sales and on the other, the reduction in tender prices—are designed to maintain those programmes pretty well in line with the present outlook.
My right hon. Friend has investigated this subject and well knows that the present plans provide for a probable increase in nationalised industry investment next year of about 15 per cent. in real terms compared with last year. My right hon. Friend also mentioned a major programme of public works, financed by private capital. I remind him, with gratitude, of the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, which made two important qualifications when encouraging such expenditure. It is said that we should take great care not to end up by paying more for borrowing money to finance works in the public sector. It also said that we should take great care to design methods of borrowing money from the private sector that contributed to an increase in efficiency in those public sector activities.
We shall bear those two recommendations firmly in mind when considering my right hon. Friend's suggestion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members have been told that there will be a debate on this subject. I propose to allow a full half-hour of questions, excluding the 35 minutes that have already been taken up. We shall then have to move on to other business.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Would it not have been better if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had conceded that in the coming year—and, indeed, for some years—there will be no improvement in real living standards and that he is planning to cut them, instead of talking about a gradual recovery, which is utter nonsense and which is seen as such by everyone on both sides of industry? Now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's medium-term strategy is in total tatters—the Prime Minister calls it "flexibility"—will he use that flexibility to reduce unemployment and, if necessary, increase the public sector borrowing requirement instead of positively increasing unemployment, as he has announced today? Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give us the figure. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman show that amount of flexibility in the coming year?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken more than once in the House, from his experience in the Treasury, of the importance of ensuring that resources are moved from real personal living standards and current expenditure into capital expenditure, on the lines recommended by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Given that real personal disposable income rose in the three years to 1980 by 17 per cent. and that during the same period the resources of the corporate sector fell substantially, some reduction—as is taking place this year—is inevitable in personal living standards, if we are to accumulate the resources for further investment and

achieve a reduction in unemployment. That is essential to the gradual recovery to which the forecast points. It is equally essential if we are to reduce unemployment on sustainable and effective terms.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Since my right hon. and learned Friend's overriding priority is the defeat of inflation, will he tell the House what effect the increases in rents, rates, contributions and charges announced or implied this afternoon will have on the retail price index and on the tax and price index?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The significant component that is likely to affect the retail price index is the proposed increase in local authority rents. That is likely to have an impact of about 0·6 per cent. However, I remind my right hon. Friend that the average level of council house rents still represents only about 7 per cent. of average earnings. In addition, about 50 per cent. of local authority tenants are in receipt of rebates. The changes in the national insurance contributions do not directly affect the retail price index.

Hon. Members: What about the tax and price index? Answer the question.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I had not realised that I had called two right hon. Members from the same side. I shall make up for that and call two Opposition Members to speak later.

Mr. Macmillan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that he has not done very much to help private industry? In that context, what proportion of the programmes that have been reduced or reprieved represent capital expenditure? When does my right hon. and learned Friend expect interest rates to fall?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The changes that I have announced in the outlook for public expenditure are designed to maintain a proper balance between public expenditure and the private sector—which my right hon. Friend is rightly concerned about—in order to increase, rather than diminish, the prospect of reductions in interest rates. As I have pointed out, the great bulk of capital programmes are in areas where resources—as a result of increased efficiency or higher sales of local authority housing—are likely still to be available for maintaining the effective volume of capital spending programmes.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Is the Chancellor aware that what his statement describes as increasing the rate of employees' contributions to the national insurance fund by 1 per cent. means that, next April, this crude and regressive tax will have increased by 13 per cent. over the rate for the previous year? Will he say how much of this perverse increase is due to his decision to reduce yet again the Treasury supplement to the national insurance fund.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Only a very small proportion is attributable to that; it represents a transfer from one pocket to another. The proposed increase of 1 per cent. is the same as that proposed last year. In all the circumstances, it is entirely right that the funds should be financed by additional contributions from those still in work.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Now that even some of the Chancellor's pet economists are regaining their sanity, cannot he do the same?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If I need advice about my sanity, I shall not look to the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that it is the easiest thing in the world to spend other people's money and that, at the end of the day, it is the taxpayer who has to foot the bill? Will he further agree that, apart from the world recession, the trouble with our economy is the drain of the nationalised industries and overmanning in the public sector? Should not the selling off of nationalised industries be accelerated? Is it not time for a moratorium to be considered on public sector recruitment?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of ensuring that the size of the public sector does not continue to increase, in order to diminish the burden on the private trading sector of the economy. The change in the balance of public spending that I have announced is designed to help in that direction. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the burden imposed on the economy by the large demands of the nationalised industries and the extent to which they are not exposed to competition and other economic pressures likely to increase efficiency. For that reason, we continue to attach importance to the proposals already announced and those still to be announced for continued privatisation of those industries. We shall maintain our plans to continue the reduction of those emmployed in the Civil Service by 102,000 by 1984.

Mr. John Morris: What calculation has the Chancellor made of the effect of these measures on unemployment? Will the figure be higher or lower a year from now?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: These proposals are designed to improve the balance of the economy so that we can look forward, sooner rather than later, to a reduction in the growth of unemployment. It is our hope that we shall reach that turning point during the coming year.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: Will my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the public expenditure figures he has announced seem to suggest the relative failure of the cost-cutting exercise conducted by Sir Derek Rayner on a part-time basis over the last two and a half years? Savings of £100 million a year, welcome though they are, look small against £100 billion or £110 billion of total expenditure. Will my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that there is need for a savings exercise that is much more radical in its concept and execution?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would not want the House to be left with any impression that the exercise conducted by Sir Derek Rayner had been other than successful. Sir Derek has conducted and supervised many surveys that have contributed to substantial changes in policy and manpower policies, many of which are continuing to be brought into effect. Moreover, they do not represent anything like the whole of the Government's programme for the reduction of waste and inefficiency in the public sector. As a result of changes set in hand soon after the Government came to office, we are continuing to secure steady reductions in the totals employed in the Civil Service, amounting to over 100,000 by 1984. We shall continue to try to improve that progress. I take account of the important point made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. John Horam: Does the Chancellor not appreciate that industry is crying out for additional demand for its products and that it can meet that demand without stoking the fires of inflation? What was needed today was not a status quo expenditure plan but a real reflationary Budget that many of my hon. Friends in the Social Democratic Party as well as many Conservative Members have been urging for some time. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the expenditure plans he has announced will have no real reflationary effect? In practice, he has listened to the chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench Finance Committee and has no intention of listening to the chairman of the 1922 Committee. What the Chancellor means by "gradual recovery" is an inexorable rise in the level of unemployment.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The prospect of improved demand for industry and other parts of the economy depends on their capacity to produce additional volumes of goods and services at prices that are increasingly competitive with those with which they have to sell. The growth that is now foreseen as taking place is likely to be taking place just because of that. The fact that there has been a substantial increase of 41 per cent. in engineering orders in recent months is a reflection of the capacity of industry to increase its own demand by improving the efficiency of its own supply.
Just as there is considerable scope for increased selling in export markets, so there is considerable scope, by improved efficiency, for selling within the home market. One good example is to be seen in what I have said about capital expenditure on water services, roads and motorways. Although the cash provided for those programmes will be reduced, the volume of services provided will be maintained through increased efficiency on the part of those supplying the services.
The hon. Gentleman asks for a reflationary Budget. I must warn him that the implication of the very word "reflation" is that it is likely to increase the risk of higher inflation. I must also tell him that the balance of the Budget for next year consists of two components—the public expenditure component that I have announced and also the tax provisions that I shall lay before the House at that time. Only at that time will one be able to make a judgment of the total Budget plan.

Mr. John Golding: Is the Chancellor aware that it is inappropriate at the present time to describe unemployment benefit as a short-term benefit? What is his justification for paying an estimated 700,000 people who will be long-term unemployed a benefit less than that paid to those suffering disability or those in retirement? What justification exists for not making up to them the loss that they suffered this year through receiving increases less than the real cost of living? How will he make up the loss of wage-related benefits next year?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is necessary, as I have indicated, to take account of two factors, the relationship between payments to those out of work and payments likely to be received by those in work, and the impact of those benefit programmes on the total of public expenditure.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Is the overall effect of the measures that the Chancellor has announced to increase or decrease the level of aggregate demand in 1982–83?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Taken by itself, the question relating to next year cannot be answered. The pattern of aggregate demand next year, to use the term employed by my right hon. Friend, depends on both halves of the Budget plan that comes before the House next year—on plans for expenditure that I have discussed today and on plans for revenue that will be discussed at the time of the Budget. The proposals that I have announced amount to the maintenance of public spending programmes in cost terms at about the same level.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: To get down to cases, is the Chancellor aware that his cut in rate support grant will mean a compensating rate increase for a local authority like Sheffield of 8 per cent. to 10 per cent., with a multiplier effect on local prices? How does he reconcile that effect with the Government's policies on inflation and pay, not to mention the current frenetic attempts of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to suppress all rate increases?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The level of rate increases depends on the level of spending programmes decided by local authorities. Those spending programmes, as I have already said, are responsible for about two-thirds of the likely increase in public spending during the current year. In addition, we have made provision for £1·35 billion additional resources for local government next year. In those circumstances, there should be no reason for prudent local authorities to embark on the kind of rate increases the the hon. Gentleman describes.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: May I tell my right hon. and learned Friend that we welcome his reassurance that the real value of pensions is to be maintained. However, in view of the fact that the standard of living of many pensioners and others has been and is being adversely affected by nationalised industry prices, particularly those which relate to telephone, transport and fuel, can he offer any real hope that these prices will be restrained more adequately in future, thereby maintaining the level of consumer demand?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about pensions. I understand the widespread concern about the impact on living standards and industrial costs of high price increases in the nationalised industries. It is for that reason, among others, that we have maintained the probable provision for nationalised industries to allow them to maintain their capital spending programmes on the lines foreshadowed earlier this year. We believe that it is possible for them to do that, provided that they continue to make efforts to improve their own efficiency, not least by keeping down their current wage costs.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that since he took office the tax burden on the average family, direct and indirect, has gone up by £26 a week? Will he deny or confirm that figure? How much will it be further increased by the package that he has announced today? In this connection, will he answer the question put by his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham

(Sir I. Gilmour): what is the increase on the tax and price index as a result of his announcement today? As he said that this is an unchanged policy of success, can he say what dazzling successes he will inflict on us in the next two years?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will table a question about the precise impact. A number of the measures that I have announced today have not yet been finally decided. For example, the proposed rent increase is still a matter for discussion between my right hon. Friend and the local authority associations. However, I note the hon. Gentleman's concern about the increased tax burden on our people, and I hope that I may count on his support in future for continued economy in public expenditure.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his statement today, which continues the battle for national solvency. Will he take this opportunity to refute the remarks made by Professor Alan Budd, as reported in today's press, that the exchange rate is not relevant to the battle against inflation? Surely the experience of the last months has proved the exact opposite. Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore resist demands for speedy reflation in view of the effect that that could have on the confidence of sterling holders?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to important matters. I have rejected the prospect already offered to me by Opposition Members of a speedy reflation of the economy. It is of course right that the level of the exchange rate is relevant to inflation.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: The implication of the Chancellor's statement, in rejecting a speedy recovery of the economy, is that the economy at present is grossly overheated. Does he not realise that we shall soon have more than 3 million unemployed, with a further 750,000 young people in temporary occupations of one kind or another and relief work generally? Will he correct the misleading statement that he has just made that a 41 per cent. increase in engineering orders represents a growth in that industry, when employers in that industry have told him personally that they expect that by mid-1982 there will be a reduction in their total output and a reduction of more than 90,000 workers in their total work force? Will he put an end to the myths that he is spreading about growth in the engineering industry and the rest of the economy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There have been substantial increases in orders for engineering output, and they represent the achievement of higher growth prospects by efficient management and effective labour relations. It is by a determined co-operation to reduce costs that industry is likely to expand demand effectively and in a way that can be sustained.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the prospect of speedy reflation of the economy, or any kind of reflation of the economy, is likely in the end to have precisely the opposite effect from the one he intends. Almost any analysis that has been published shows that substantial so-called reflationary packages result in modest increases in employment that are temporary, not lasting. It is only by sustaining the Government's determination to maintain the fight against inflation and the equal determination of both


sides of industry to improve their competitiveness that we can maintain the foundations for improvement in employment.

Sir David Price: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say what effects his announcement will have on public sector capital investment? Does he agree that, in trying to strike a balance between the need to maintain the battle against inflation and the need to boost the economy, this is the moment to mobilise unused resources in the economy by increasing capital investment?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already accepted the point that was put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) to that effect. It is of course important to secure a substantial reduction in the proportion of our resources devoted to current expenditure if we are to rebuild profits and investment and have the prospect of improved capital investment and durable employment in the future. It is for that reason that we believe that the provision that we have made for housing, including the proposed provision for housing rent increases and the continuation of local authority sales, and the provision made in respect of nationalised industries and in respect of investment in water services, roads and motorways, together are likely to allow the maintenance of those capital expenditure programmes.

Mr. Michael English: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer do something about the aspect of rates that is solely within the control of the House—in other words, the people who do not pay them? Is it not reasonable that when rates are likely to increase, country landowners, schools in the private sector, and others who do not pay rates, should at least pay 10 per cent. instead of nothing? Taking an analogy from the United States, does he think that it would be a good idea if we could all deduct the rates that we pay from our income tax?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the effect of deducting rates from one's income tax bill would be to reduce the revenue to the Exchequer by a significant amount. It would have to be made up in some other way.

Mr. English: Not in the case of country landowners.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was about to deal with the hon. Gentleman's more sophisticated point. It is of course possible to make changes in the extent of rate exemptions, although that is not a matter to be discussed on a statement of this nature; it would be more appropriate in debates that the House is likely to have on the pattern of rating during the year ahead.

Mr. Paul Dean: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the figures that he has announced today for increased expenditure on the elderly, training arrangements for the young, the widows, the disabled, the sick and the unemployed, confirm the Government's commitment to assist the most vulnerable sector of the community? Does it not show that the courage and determination that Her Majesty's Government have been applying to our deep-seated economic problems are beginning to produce good results?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is precisely right. The Government have shown their determination throughout to make available as many resources as possible for the protection of those whom my hon. Friend identified, and also to seek to control the total burden of public expenditure to allow the private sector to resume its growth along the lines that I have forecast for next year.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Chancellor accept that if he wants the House to have confidence, if not in his sanity, at least in the fact that he has the reins of office in good control, he should not come to the House and use glib phrases such as "gradual recovery"? That is a spurious phrase to use about what he has done in terms of real public expenditure. Does he accept that the £5 billion increase—if we take his estimate of inflation of 10 per cent. —is in effect a decrease in real terms in public expenditure, and that the great burden of recovery will therefore be borne, if at all, by the people of this country in a regressive form? He is going backwards, not recovering at all.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has made his assessment in the wrong way. The £5 billion increase to which he referred is an increase to £115 billion from the original planned expenditure for next year of £110 billion. As I have already shown, the increase is larger than that on the likely outturn of expenditure in the current year. It is likely to represent a public expenditure programme of about the same size in cost terms.
The prospect of recovery, gradual or otherwise, cannot be advanced by the continued expansion of public expenditure. Only because we have maintained our determination to control the size of public expenditure, even in these difficult times, am I able to publish a forecast offering the prospect of growth in the year ahead.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be a little more positive and put his statement in the context of the Government's wider purposes? Does he not realise that what he has so far announced is increased costs for industry and increased tax and charges on those working in industry. Will he now tell us what it is all for and what it will achieve?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reminder of the importance of containing increases for industry. That is one of the Government's prime purposes and one of the reasons why we have to make a difficult series of choices about the pattern of public expenditure.
My statement represents one half of the balance sheet which is to be presented to the House at the time of next year's Budget. Plainly, we shall have to take decisions at that time, which so far as it is then possible to judge, will take us further in the right direction.

Mr. Michael Meacher: What is the justification for further public expenditure cuts when recent evidence shows that three-quarters of such cuts are simply swallowed up in increased expenditure on extra unemployment and supplementary benefits and taxes forgone? Is that not absurd when Treasury figures show that the costs of unemployment already exceed the total PSBR?
Secondly, how does the right hon. and learned Gentleman justify de-indexing unemployment benefit below the level of inflation when the original justification for this was that the benefit was not taxed? That no longer


applies. Will not this package simply lead this Christmas to the highest number of people living in means-tested poverty since the war?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The general accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is demonstrated by his last observation. This package will have no effect whatsoever on conditions this Christmas. It is designed to apply to and make provision for the following financial year and it is wrong to believe that we can begin reducing the burden of unemployment on the economy by expanding public expenditure. The right way to do so is to contain the burden of public expenditure so as to offer the prospect of growth in the economy and of resumed employment growth as soon as possible.

Mr. Keith Speed: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what his estimate is of the total effect of all these measures on industrial costs?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot do so without notice. It would be very difficult to do so. The main point to bear in mind is that the national insurance increases imposed on industry are those which I have described. They follow only from the increases in wages and salaries being paid by industry and the increase in the upper earnings limit of the national insurance contribution.
On the other hand, there is the prospect of maintained capital investment programmes by the nationalised industries if they perform efficiently and the prospect of continued expenditure on the defence industries as a result of the increases that I have announced in the cash available. Those measures are designed to secure the right kind of balance along lines with which my hon. Friend will agree.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean by "in cost terms"? What will be the effect on the tax and price index, and are the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assessments of the revenues that will be raised by way of income tax in the current financial year in accord with what he said at the time of the last Budget?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about the tax and price index will depend on a number of factors. The change in cost terms is one of the more sensible ways of measuring the likely growth of programmes or maintenance of programmes in real terms.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What does that mean?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already given figures to the House about the burden of national insurance.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend even remotely satisfied with the level of industrial capacity and demand? If he is not, has he at least framed his measures in the hope of making further tax cuts in his spring Budget?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The decisions to be taken in my spring Budget will be taken at that time in the light of a whole range of factors which will be clearer then than they are today, and when there is a better view of the year ahead. Of course I share my hon. Friend's concern to improve the prospects for industry and commerce. That is one of the reasons for having to face difficult decisions in relation to public expenditure programmes.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer two simple questions? In his statement he mentioned the small rise in unemployment forecast for the coming year. What is that forecast? What rise in unemployment does the right hon. and learned Gentleman foresee? How can I explain to the 145,000 people whom he has added to the unemployed list in the North-East how they can be expected to accept the 5 per cent. cut in their standards of living which took place last year and the 2 per cent. cut in the coming year?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman's last question.

Mr. Bagier: No you have not.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The assumptions about unemployment in the year ahead will be contained in the Government Actuary's report which will be available tomorrow. The substance of it is contained in the document laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Government Actuary, in preparing his calculations, has worked on the assumption that the average number of unemployed excluding school leavers will be 2·6 million in the current year and 2·9 million in 1982–83 and in addition that the number of unemployed school leavers, adult students and people whose employment is stopped temporarily will average 220,000 in the present year and 225,000 in the year ahead. Those figures are consistent with the prospect of some fall in the total unemployment figure before the end of that year.

Mr. Shore: To give the Chancellor the opportunity to avoid any confusion or misleading of the House—to which some words in his statement might have given rise, particularly in relation to raising public expenditure—will he confirm that in real terms he does not expect any increase in public expenditure in 1982–83 over 1981–82? Will the Chancellor also confirm that that will happen only if the less plausible of his inflation assumptions are achieved, and that if the inflation assumption of 10 per cent. in the economic paper is achieved there will be a real cut in public expenditure next year?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I repeat the answer that I have already given. [Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] The inflation forecast for the year ahead is that which I gave to the House at the outset of my statement. It is about 10 per cent. The likely rate of inflation for goods and services in the public sector might be a little below that. The likely sum payable for pay in the public service is in line with the figure of 4 per cent., as I have already told


the House. Taking account of those facts, public expenditure next year will probably not be very different from public spending this year, in cost terms.

Following is the note by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC EXPENDITURE DECISIONS FOR 1982–83

1. This note summarises the main public expenditure decisions which have been taken for 1982–83. They are in cash*. They will be set out in full, along with the planning figures for 1983–4 and 1984–5, in the next public expenditure White Paper to be published at the time of the Budget.
*In a few cases expenditure is on an accruals basis.

Starting Point

2. The Government's earlier plans for expenditure in 1982–83 set out in the last public expenditure White Paper—Cmnd. 8175—were expressed in "1980 survey prices", that is broadly the prices ruling in the autumn of 1979. To establish a starting point for this year's survey just concluded, those last White Paper plans were revalued to express the plans in cash.

3. For this revaluation a general factor of 9 per cent. was used for the increase in prices other than public services pay between 1981–82 and 1982–83, and for public services pay a factor of 4 per cent. from the next settlement dates. Adjustments were also used to allow for certain changes which do not affect the PSBR, notably additional external finance for the British Gas Corporation to allow for the Gas levy, and for certain minor classification changes. This produced a total of £110 billion, as shown in Table 1.


Table 1



1981–82 £ billion
1982–83 £ billion


1. Cmnd. 8175 at 1980 Survey Prices
*79·5
77·9


2. (1) Revalued to cash
*†104½
†109½


3. Adjustments for PSBR—neutral changes
½
½


4. Starting point for the survey
105
110


* Including Budget changes.


† Including minor classification changes etc.

4.It has been decided that the cash to be made available for programmes in 1982–83 should be as shown in table 2.

5. The proposed external financing limits for the nationalised industries in 1982–83 are listed in table 3.

Planning Total

6.For programmes which depend on economic assumptions such as the level of unemployment (the main such programmes are marked with a * in Table 2), the revised figures for individual programmes have been constructed on the basis of the economic assumptions used in the last White Paper. New assumptions for the next White Paper will be decided nearer the time of publication, and an appropriate adjustment made to those programmes. The size of the Contingency Reserve and the provision for

asset sales will also be determined later. These decisions will determine the exact size of the planning total to be included in the next White Paper.

7. In the meantime a single global allowance has been made for the effects of these adjustments, for the Contingency Reserve, and for asset sales. This results in an estimate of the planning total of about £115 billion.

Table 2—Public Expenditure Plans, by Department



1981–82
1982–83



While Paper* £m
White Paper* £m
Revised Programme £m


1. Departments (excluding nationalised industries' external finance):—





Ministry of Defence
12,270
13,624
14,103


Foreign and Commonwealth Office (including Overseas Development Administration)
1,556
1,575
1,565


European Community
460
501
587


Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
530
593
664


Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
962
976
1,031


Forestry Commission
59
64
62


Department of Industry
1,970
1,460
1,393


Department of Energy
354
385
387


Department of Trade
287
302
292


Exports Credits Guarantee Department
4
89
†115


Department of Employment
2,320
1,911
2,688


Department of Transport
2.880
3,036
3,166


DOE—Housing
4,125
3,869
†3,871


DOE—Property Services Agency
439
453
444


DOE—Other Environment services
3,546
3,669
3,661


Home Office
3,263
3,529
3,639


Department of Education and Science
11,315
11,667
12,216


Office of Arts and Libraries
475
500
532


DHSS—Health
10,793
11,613
11,650


DHSS—Personal Social Services
1,657
1,788
1,970


DHSS—Social Security
27,575
30,197
†29,900


Scotland
5,621
5,855
5,956


Wales
2,240
2,326
2,375


Northern Ireland
3,223
3,419
3,510


Other Departments
2,907
3,111
3,121

1981–82
1982–83



White Paper* £m
White Paper* £m
Revised Programme £m


2. Nationalised industries' total external finance
2,924
1,470
2,770


3. Total programmes (rounded)
103,750
107,980
111,670


4. Contingency reserve
2,500
2,850
say ‡3,300


5. Special sales of assets
-230
-180


6. General allowance for underspend
-1,000
-700


7. Planning total (rounded)
105,000
110,000
say 115,000


Notes to Table 2


*Plans in White Paper (Cmnd. 8175) revalued and adjusted for Budget changes (1981–82 only), certain changes not affecting the PSBR, and minor classification changes.


† Subject to adjustment for revised economic assumptions. See paragraph 6.


‡ To be determined later. For the present includes allowance for effect on programmes of possible revised economic assumptions (see paragraph 6).

Table 3—Nationalised Industry External Financing Limits*



1982–83 Proposed Provision


National Coal Board
1026


Electricity Supply Industry (England and Wales)
-319


British Gas Corporation
†-2


British National Oil Corporation‡
-85


British Steel Corporation
‡350


British Telecom
**340


Post Office and National Girobank
-25


British Shipbuilders
‡125


British Airways
-9


British Airports Authority
48


British Railways Board
950


British Transport Docks Board
-7


National Freight Company Ltd.
=n/a


National Bus Company
71


British Waterways Board
40


North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board
47


South of Scotland Electricity Board
198


Scottish Transport Group
21



2770


Notes to Table 3


* Included in line 6 of Table 2.


† Estimated effects of gas levy payments on BGCs cash flow of £430 million have been taken into account in setting BC's EFL for 1982–83.


‡ As in previous years, the figure for BNOC is a forecast and does not represent a limit.


‡ Provisional: to be determined after consideration of the industry's corporate plan.


** The Government has indicated that it will increase British Telecom's EFL if agreement is reached on a bond for 1982–83.


= The Government intends to sell all the shares in the National Freight Company Limited during 1981–82, and in view of this no figure for the company has been included.

Following is the Statement by the Secretary of State for Social Services—

This statement is pursuant to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier today on social security and NHS spending.

NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS CHANGES FOR 1982–83

The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced earlier today that the Government propose to:—

(1) reduce the rate of Treasury Supplement from 14·5 per cent. to 13 per cent. This will achieve savings in the Consolidated Fund of £261 million in the year 1982–83.
(2) increase the National Health Service allocation from contributions, to provide additional revenue of £104 million in the year 1982–83.
(3) raise the lower and upper earnings limits for national insurance liability to take account of inflation.
(4) increase contributions both to take account of these changes and to cover increased demands on the National Insurance Fund.

I shall tomorrow present a Bill which provides for these changes. It will also provide for the increase of ·35 per cent. in the employment protection allocation to keep the redundancy fund within the borrowing limit recently agreed by the House to be added to the employee's national insurance contribution.

The Government Actuary's Report

The effect of these changes, and the assumptions which underlie their, are set out in the report of the Government Actuary—Cmnd. 8443—which will be laid before the House at the same time as the Bill is presented. The assumptions on which the Government Actuary has worked in preparing his calculations are as follows:

i that the number of unemployed people, excluding school leavers, will average 2,600,000 in 1981–2 and 2,900,000 in 1982–3; and that, in addition, the number of unemployed school leavers and adult students or people whose employment has temporarily stopped will average 220,000 in 1981–2 and 225,000 in 1982–3;
ii that average earnings in the tax year 1981–2 will be 11·3 per cent. higher than in the tax year 1980–81 and the average in the tax year 1982–3 7·5 per cent higher than in 1981–2.
iii that there will be a benefit uprating of 10 per cent. in November 1982 in line with the expected movement of prices plus, in the case of long-term benefits, a further 2 per cent. to make good the expected shortfall in the November 1981 uprating."

CHANGES IN CONTRIBUTION RATES

Employees and Employers

The class 1 employee contribution rate—not contracted out—is increased from 7·75 per cent. to 8·75 per cent. 0·25 per cent. of this increase is on account of the reduction in the Treasury supplement, 0·1 per cent for the NHS, 0·35 per cent. for the redundancy fund and 0·3 per cent. to keep the national insurance fund in broad balance. The same increases are being made in the employee contracted-out rate. The reduced contribution payable by opted-out married women and widows is increased from 2·75 per cent. to 3·2 per cent. There will be no increase in the contribution rate for employers, which will continue at 10 per cent., not contracted-out, plus 0·2 per cent. for the redundancy and maternity pay funds and 3·5 per cent. national insurance surcharge, although employers' contributions will be affected by the new upper earnings limit.
These contributions are payable on all earnings up to an upper limit provided that the earnings reach a lower limit. In line with the requirements of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, the lower earnings limit will be increased to £29·50 a week, just below the new basic retirement pension, and the upper earnings limit will be increased to £220 a week. The present limits are £27 and £200 a week respectively.

The Self-employed

The flat-rate class 2 contribution will be raised from £3·40 a week to £3·75 a week. This increase is accounted for entirely by inflation, in particular the movement of earnings and benefit rates. I have thought it right not to make additions to the class 2 rate for the NHS allocation or to compensate for the reduction in the Treasury supplement. In reaching this decision, I have suspended for this year the application of the formula for calculating the class 2 contribution which has been used since 1978. I do so in recognition of the important role which the self-employed, and in particular small businesses, must play in the regeneration of our economy: the need to keep to a minimum the burdens of the self-employed—especially those with lower profits, who may have a class 2 liability only—has therefore been foremost in my mind.

TABLE SHOWING IMPACT OF PROPOSED CHANGES ON INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY


A. —Not-contracted-out


Weekly earnings £
1981–82 weekly contribution £
Changes on account of inflation* £
Increases on account of the NI Fund and changes in NHS and EP allocation and Treasury Supplement £
1982–83 weekly contribution £


Employed Earner






27·00
2·09
-2·09
—
Nil


29·50
2·29
—
+0·29
2·58


60·00
4·65
—
+0·60
5·25


100·00
7·75
—
+1·00
8·75


150·00†
11·62
—
+1·50
13·12


200·00
15·50
—
+2·00
17·50


220·00
15·50
+ 1·55
+2·20
19·25


Employer‡






27·00
3·70
-3·70
—
Nil

The annual limit of earnings below which a self-employed person may apply for exemption from liability for class 2 contribution will be raised from £1,475 to £1, 600.
The weekly class 2 contribution rate for share fishermen, who are eligible for unemployment benefit, will go up from £5·15 a week to £5·85.
The rate of class 4 contributions payable on profits will be increased from 5·75 per cent. to 6 per cent. —0·1 per cent. for the NHS, 0·15 per cent. on account of the reduced Treasury supplement—and the limits of annual profits between which class 4 contributions are paid will be raised from £3,150 and £10,000 to £3,450 and £11,000. The new class 4 rates also represent a slight modification of the usual formula for calculating self-employed contributions, which would have given a rate of 6·1 per cent. I felt, however, that it was right to shield the self-employed from the full effects of the reduction in the Treasury supplement.

Voluntary contributions

The rate of the class 3 (voluntary) contributions will be increased from £3·30 to £3·65 a week.

Effect of all the changes

The tables set out the changes and their implications, distinguishing between those due to inflation and the extra increases now proposed. For those with earnings or profits between the lower and upper limits, class 1 or class 4 contributions will rise automatically with earnings or profits. Inflation increases will therefore affect only the flat-rate contributions and class 1 and class 4 contributions on earnings and profits above the old upper limits.

For someone earning £150 a week—about the average for men for September 1981—and not contracted out, the class 1 contribution would rise by £1·50 a week. For the self-employed person with profits of this amount—£7,800—the combined class 2 and class 4 contribution would rise by 23p a week. The maximum increase in the total class 1 contribution—employer and employee jointly—would be £6·49 a week, of which the employer would pay £2·74 on account of inflation. The employee would pay £1·55 for inflation and £2·20 because of the increase in the rate. For the self-employed, the maximum increase would be £1·49 a week, 77p due to the higher profits limit and 72p due to the increase in rates.

Weekly earnings £
1981–82 weekly contribution £
changes on account of inflation* £
Increases on account of the NI Fund and changes in NHS and EP allocation and Treasury Supplement £
1982–83 weekly contribution £


29·50
4·04
—
—
4·04


60·00
8·22
—
—
8·22


100·00
13·70
—
—
13·70


150·00†
20·55
—
—
20·55


200·00
27·40
—
—
27·40


220·00
27·40
+2·74
—
30·14


Total Class 1






27·00
5·79
-5·79
—
Nil


29·50
6·33
—
+0·29
6·62


60·00
12·87
—
+0·60
13·47


100·00
21·45
—
+1·00
22·45


150·00†
32·17
—
+ 1·50
33·67


200·00
42·90
—
+ 2·00
44·90


220·00
42·90
+4·29
+ 2·20
49·39


* ie changes in lower and upper earnings limits.


† Approximate average weekly earnings of all full-time males at September 1981.


‡ Includes national insurance surcharge (3·5 per cent.) and Redundancy and Maternity Pay Fund allocation (0·2 per cent.).

Table Showing Impact of Proposed Changes on Individual Liability


B. Contracted-out


Weekly earnings
1981–82 Weekly earnings contribution
Changes on account of inflation†
Increases on account of the NI Fund and changes in NHS &amp; EP allocation and Treasury Supplement
1982–83 weekly contribution


£
£
£
£
£


Employed Earner






27·00
2·09
-2·09
—
Nil


29·50
2·22
+0·07
+0·29
2·58


60·00
3·82
+0·07
+0·60
4·49


100·00
5·92
+0·07
+ 1·00
6·99


150·00‡
8·55
+0·07
+ 1·50
10·11


200·00
11·17
+0·07
+ 2·00
13·24


220·00
11·17
+1·12
+2·20
14·49


Employer*






27·00
3·70
-3·70
—
Nil


29·50
3·93
+0·11
—
4·04


60·00
6·74
+0·11
—
6·85


100·00
10·42
+0·11
—
10·53


150·00‡
15·02
+0·11
—
15·13


200·00
19·62
+0·11
—
19·73


220·00
19·62
+ 1·95
—
21·57


Total Class 1






27·00
5·79
-5·79
—
Nil


29·50
6·15
+0·18
+0·29
6·62


60·00
10·56
+0·18
+0·60
11·34


100·00
16·34
+0·18
+1·00
17·52


150·00‡
23·57
+0·18
+1·50
25·24


200·00
30·79
+0·18
+2·00
32·97


220·00
30·79
+3·07
+2·20
36·06


† i.e. changes in lower and upper earnings limits.


* Includes national insurance surcharge (3·5 per cent.) and Redundancy and Maternity Pay Fund allocation (0·2 per cent.)


‡ Approximate average weekly earnings of all full-time males.

Table Showing Impact of Proposed Changes on Individual Liability C. Reduced Employee Rate—Payable by Opted-out Married Women and Widows (3·2%)


Weekly Earnings £
1981–82 weekly contribution £
Changes on account of inflation† £
Increases on account of the NI Fund and changes in NHS &amp; EP allocations and Treasury Supplement £
1982–83 weekly contribution £


27·00
0·74
-0·74
—
Nil


29·50
0·81
—
0·13
0·94


60·00
1·65
—
0·27
1·92


100·00‡
2·75
—
0·45
3·20

Weekly Earnings £
1981–82 weekly contribution £
Changes on account of inflation† £
Increases on account of the NI Fund and changes in NHS &amp; EP allocations and Treasury Supplement £
1982–83 weekly contribution £


150·00
4·12
—
0·68
4·80


200·00
5·50
—
0·90
6·40


220·00
5·50
0·55
0·99
7·04


Employers contributions are the same as shown in tables A and B.






† i.e. changes in lower and upper earnings limits.


‡ Approximate average weekly earnings of all full-time females.

D. Table showing impact of proposed changes on the annual liability of the self-employed


Annual Profits or Gains £
1981–82 £
Changes on account of inflation £
Increases on account of change in NHS allocation and Treasury Supplement £
1982–83 £


1,475
176·80
-176·80
—
Nil


1,600
176·80
+ 18·20
—
195


3,150
176·80
+18·20
—
195

Changes in Contribution Rates Proposed for 1982–83



1981–82
Changes on account of inflation* £
Increases on account of the National Insurance Fund changes in NHS and EP allocations and Treasury Supplement per cent.
1982–83


Class 1 rate






Lower Earnings Limit (LEL)
£27 a week
2·50

£29·50


Upper Earnings limit (UEL)
£200 a week
20·00

£220·00


Employed earner's rate:






Not contracted-out
7·75 per cent.

1
8·75 per cent.


Contracted-out
7·75 per cent. to LEL

1
8·75 per cent. to LEL



5·25 per cent. between LEL and UEL

1
6·25 per cent. between LEL and UEL


Reduced rate
2·75 per cent.

0·45
3·2 per cent.


Employer's rate*






Not contracted-out
13·7 per cent.
—
—
13·7 per cent.


Contracted-out
9·2 per cent.
—
—
9·2 per cent.


Class 2 rate
£3·40 a week
£0·35
0·25
£3·75


Small earnings exception—where earnings






below
£1,475 a year
125·00
—
£1,600


Class 4 rate
5·75 per cent.
—

6 per cent.


Lower limit of profits or gains
£3,150 a year
300·00
—
£3,450


Upper limit of profits or gains
£10,000 a year
1,000·00
—
£11,000


Class 3 rate
£3·30 a week
0·35

£3·65


* In particular, the movements in earnings and benefit rates.


† Inclusive of National Insurance Surcharge (3·5 per cent.) payable under the National Insurance Surcharge Act 1976 as amended by the Finance Act 1978 and Redundancy and Maternity Pay Fund allocation (0·2 per cent.)

Annual Profits or Gains £
1981–82 £
Changes on account of inflation £
Increases on account of change in NHS allocation and Treasury Supplement £
1982–83 £


3,450
194·05
+18·20
—
195


5,000
283·17
+0·95
3·88
288


7,800
444·17
+0·95
10·88
456


10,000
570·67
+0·95
16·38
588


11,000
570·67
+58·45
18·88
648

TOTAL PAYMENTS IN 1982–83 BY EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES IN NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS AND NATIONAL INSUREANCE SURCHARGE


£ million



National Insurance Contributions
NI Surcharge





Employees
Employers
Total Employees + Employers
Employers
Total Employees + Employers Contributions + NIS
Total Employers Contributions + NIS


Contributions in 1981–82*
6,756
9,011
15,767
3,791
19,558
12,802


1981–83 increase from increased earnings etc,†
542
512
1,054
225
1,279
737


Sub-total
7,298
9,523
16,821
4,016
20,837
13,539


1982–83 increase from changes in earnings limits
105
140
245
47
292
187


1982–83 increase from increased rates (l%)‡
992
—
992
—
992
—


Total contributions in 1982–83
8,395
9,663
18,058
4,063
22,121
13,726


Total increase in 1982–83
1,639
652
2,291
272
2,563
924


* Including NHS and, for employers, redundancy and maternity funds.


† Includes population and employment changes and delayed effects of April 1981 changes.


‡ These result from class 1 contributions. A further £20 million should be added for class 2, 3 and 4 contributions (self-employed and voluntary) to give the total of £1,012 as the increase in income attributable to the change in rates.

Note: To reconcile this table with Appendix 1 in the Government Actuary's Report, sum the increases below the first sub-total, including the £20 million in third footnote.

DETAILS OF THE MAIN PRESCRIPTION, DENTAL AND OPHTHALMIC SERVICES CHARGES TO BE INCREASED WITH EFFECT FROM 1 APRIL 1982

As foreshadowed in the White Paper "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1981–82 to 1983–84" (Cmnd 8175) charges in all services will increase annually in line with cost. In addition from 1 April 1982 some charges will increase in real terms. The main details are as follows:

The prescription charge will be increased from £1·00 to £1·30. The annual pre-payment certificate for prescriptions will be increased from £15·00 to £20·00.

The maximum charge for routine dental treatment will be increased from £9·00 to £13·00 and that for other kinds of treatment from £60·00 to £90·00. In the case of more expensive items, charges will be at or somewhat above 50 per cent. of costs. Details of the charges for individual items of treatment will be announced later.

The maximum charge for spectacle lenses will be increased from £8·30 to £15·00 per lens. Details of the charges for individual types of lens will be announced later.

Adjournment Debates (Mr. Speaker's Ruling)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a topic of importance to hon. Members on both sides of the house, which justifies taking up two minutes. I refer to what happened last night. I do not blame the business managers because no one knows what Irish Members will do. Last night the business of the House collapsed unexpectedly early and there was a windfall bonus of parliamentary time—a scarce commodity. I therefore applied for a second Adjournment debate—not on a stone cold subject. I wanted to pursue the curious circumstances of the sale of public assets in the form of the British Leyland tractor line at Bathgate. Ministers had not given a proper reply on that issue in the debate on the Public Accounts Committee report, possibly for reasons of time.
All that I asked last night at one minute past eight o'clock was that one of the 11 Ministers in the Treasury, Department of Industry or Scottish Office should listen to what was said. However, the ruling of November 1979 was invoked by the patient and courteous Mr. Deputy Speaker who suggested that I was infringing the conventions—not the rules—of the House. It was implied that we should perhaps look again, as a House, at that convention.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you might consider it to be less than reasonable to embark on an Adjournment debate at three minutes to ten o'clock. On the other hand, when two hours or more of prime time are available and so many hon. Members want to raise problems, might not the inflexible eight o'clock bar be reconsidered? This is not a party issue. Indeed, a Conservative Chairman of Committees who heard what was said voted in the Lobby with those who opposed the motion for the Adjournment of the House. Would you care to rule on the matter, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was also present last night and I raised a point that requires clarification. On 13 January 1975, I rose to raise a different subject from the subject of the then Adjournment debate and the then Speaker, Mr. Speaker Lloyd, said:
I must state the position as stated by my predecessor on 14 February 1964:
`My predecessors and I have always deprecated the introduction of subjects in an Adjournment debate unless due notice has been given to the Minister concerned. The reason is really, that, apart from the House of Commons point of view, an ex parte statement without reply is not a very valuable parliamentary proceeding.'
That is the position of the Chair."—[Official Report, 13 January 1975; Vol. 884, c. 161.]
On that occasion I was trying to raise a subject different from that of the preceding Adjournment debate. Ministers were sought but had not been obtained. I therefore made a brief intervention. The then Speaker did not attempt to stop me in any way. He merely stated that point of view.
I understand that it is now the position that if an Adjournment debate is applied for at one minute past eight it is not possible to hold it. Does the ruling of 1964, reinforced by the then Speaker, Mr. Speaker Lloyd, still apply in that if an hon. Member rises and there is still time for the debate, he can proceed and the speech cannot be stopped by the Speaker, although he might deprecate the matter? Is that the position, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I well recall the incident when the hon. Gentleman totally disregarded my predecessor, who indicated that he would deprecate the hon. Gentleman rising to pursue the Adjournment debate. None the less, the hon. Gentleman decided to do so. Mr. Speaker indicated that he had no authority to stop him. He could merely express his opinion.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who raised the point of order, for giving me notice that he would do so, and for the courteous way in which he has made it. On the substance of the matter, I repeat what I said in my earlier ruling in November 1979 and to which no exception was taken by any hon. Member when it was made, or since. I said:
it is unreasonable, after 8 pm to call on Ministers and their advisers to be ready to answer an Adjournment debate of which no notice has been given to the House. The House does not know the matters that are likely to be discussed. Only the individual concerned knows … A Minister is not expected to answer off the cuff. What he says is Government policy and is said on behalf of the Government."—[Official Report, 16 November 1979; Vol. 973, c. 1661.]
I now add that the essence of the debate on the Adjournment is that it should deal with matters for which Ministers are responsible. If a Minister is not there to answer it, the whole purpose of the procedure is lost. That is why my predecessors and I have always deprecated such occurrences—not merely my immediate predecessor but, as "Erskine May" will indicate, predecessors long before.
I can understand the distress of the hon. Member for West Lothian that his application should have been made

just too late to allow the customary procedure to be operated. Nevertheless, I must adhere to my previous opinion. My judgment is that a time limit should be drawn somewhere and that eight o'clock is a reasonable time at which to draw it. I propose, therefore, to continue to follow the existing practice, unless and until the House indicates to me that it wishes me to do otherwise.

Mr. John Wells: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that that can be accepted, especially by a member of the Chairmen's Panel, on the basis on which it is made.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: If members of the Chairmen's Panel are precluded, perhaps I, too, may be precluded. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, you have given an opinion and the House usually accepts your opinion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Always".] You said that you hoped that it would not be challenged. Do we not have a Procedure Committee? Would it not be possible for the matter to be referred to that Committee, so that the House may be given a chance to voice its opinion? Our only way of doing so now is to disagree with Mr. Speaker's opinion. If the matter were discussed in the Procedure Committee, I and other hon. Members may wish to put forward a point of view that would contradict your view, Mr. Speaker. If I did so now, I may be asked to leave the Chamber. I suggest that the matter be referred to the Procedure Committee—

Mr. Frank Haynes: We do not have one.

Mr. Lewis: Then we should ask the Leader of the House to set up such a Committee to deal with this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the courteous way in which he has made a fair point. When the Select Committee on Procedure is in existence, I have no doubt that this is one matter that could justly and fairly be referred to it.

Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Naturally, I bow to your ruling, as we all must. However, it is fair to point out that your ruling is somewhat at variance with the ruling of Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster.

Mr. Speaker: That may well be. I have given my ruling. The hon. Gentleman quotes a ruling that was indeed given, and to which mine is related. I suggest that he should take time to consider it. If the House wishes to change that, the House itself must decide. As guardian of the rights and responsibilities of the House, I have expressed my judgment.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 18 DECEMBER

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Michael Neubert
Mr. Dennis Skinner
Mr. R. A. McCrindle

BILLS PRESENTED

CRIMINAL JUSTIC

Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, supported by Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Fowler, Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Patrick Mayhew, presented a Bill to make further provision as to the powers of courts with regard to the sentencing and treatment of offenders (including provision as to the enforcement of fines and the standardisation of fines and of certain other sums specified in enactments relating to the powers of criminal courts); to amend the law of England and Wales relating to the remand in custody of accused persons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 32].

SUPPLY OF GOODS AND SERVICES

Mr. Frederick Willey, supported by Mr. David Ennals, Mr. Joan Evans, Mr. John Fraser, Mr. Douglas Hogg, Mr. Michael Latham, Mr. Mike Thomas, and Mr. Neville Trotter, presented a Bill to amend the law with respect to the terms to be implied in certain contracts for the transfer of the property in goods, in certain contracts for the hire of goods and in certain contracts for the supply of a service; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 January and to be printed [Bill 12].

FOOD AND DRUGS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Norman Atkinson presented a Bill to amend the Food and Drugs Act 1955 by increasing the penalties under that Act, by enabling offences under that Act to be tried on indictment as well as summarily, by extending in certain circumstances the time limits for prosecution; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January and to be printed [Bill 13].

PLANNING INQUIRIES (ATTENDANCE OF PUBLIC)

Mr. Michael Hamilton presented a Bill to require that evidence at planning inquiries held under the Town and Country Planning Acts be heard in public: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 February and to be printed [Bill 14].

CINEMATOGRAPH

Mr. Bowen Wells, on behalf of Mr. Peter Lloyd presented a Bill to extend and amend the Cinematograph Acts 1909 and 1952: And the same was read the first time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February and to be printed [Bill 15].

DOGS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

Mr. Jack Aspinwall, supported by Mr. Tony Speller, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. John Blackburn, Mr. Andrew Bennett, Mr. Christopher Murphy, Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. Michael Colvin, and Mr. Harry Greenway, presented a Bill to make new provision relating to responsibility for dogs in the community, including the establishment of a national dog warden scheme based on local authority areas; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 February and to be printed [Bill 16].

RATING SYSTEM (ABOLITION)

Sir Hugh Fraser, supported by Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Christopher Murphy, Mr. Teddy Taylor, Mr. J. F. Pawsey, Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, and Mr. John Heddle, presented a Bill to abolish the power of local authorities and water authorities to levy rates on the present system of assessment: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 February and to be printed [Bill 17].

DEATH GRANT (INCREASE)

Mr. Ernie Ross, supported by Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. A. W. Stallard, Mr. Frank R. White, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Gavin Strang, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. R. McTaggart, Mr. Les Huckfield, Jo Richardson, and Miss Joan Maynard, presented a Bill to uprate and provide for periodic review in relation to the price index of the death grant, and to include elderly persons currently ineligible for the grant: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 February and to be printed [Bill 18].

SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN

Mr. Michael English, supported by Miss Betty Boothroyd, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Bill Pitt, and Mr. Mike Thomas, presented a Bill to amend the law with respect to the succession to the Crown: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 February and to be printed [Bill 19].

CHILDREN'S HOMES

Mr. Ted Leadbitter, supported by Mr. Mark Hughes, Mr. Roland Moyle, Mr. Derek Foster, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Bill Homewood, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Harry Cowans, Mr. Roy Hughes, Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Norman Atkinson, and Mr. Ted Fletcher, presented a Bill to provide for the registration, inspection and conduct of certain homes and other institutions for the accommodation of children in the care of local authorities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 February and to be printed [Bill 20].

GARDEN SUPPLIES: (SUNDAY TRADING)

Sir Angus Maude, supported by Mr. Michael Grylls, Dr. Keith Hampson, Mr. James Johnson, Sir Anthony Kershaw, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mr. Nicholas Lyell, and Mr. Reg Prentice, presented a Bill to amend the Fifth Schedule to the Shops Act 1950 to make lawful the sale of garden supplies on Sundays: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February and to be printed [Bill 21].

GAMING (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Michael Brown presented a Bill to amend the law with respect to the times of year at which applications may be made relating to the licensing of premises or the registration of clubs or institutes under section 10 of the Gaming Act 1845 or Part II of the Gaming Act 1968 and otherwise with respect to the procedure to be followed in connection with such applications; to empower the Secretary of State to make provision by order as to the fees payable in connection with licences under the said section 10; and to repeal certain spent or obsolete enactments relating to the matters aforesaid: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February and to be printed. [Bill 22.]

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts, supported by Mr. Ioan Evans, Mr. John Forrester, Mr. John Fraser, Mr. Roy Hattersley, Mr. Douglas Hogg, Mr. David Knox, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Michael Neubert, Mr. Stanley Newens, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, and Mr. Alan Williams, presented a Bill to amend the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 by extending that Act to apply in certain circumstances to real property and by redefining the offence of making a false or misleading statement as to services; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 January and to be printed. [Bill 23.]

RELIEF FROM FORFEITURE

Mr. Bill Homewood, supported by Mr. Leo Abse, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Mr. Harry Cowans, Mr. Ron Brown, Mr. Bernard Conlan, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. R. McTaggart, Mr. Ian Mikardo, and Mr. Alan Williams, presented a Bill to provide for relief from forfeiture of inheritance and other rights by convicted persons, to amend the Inheritance (Provisions for Family & Dependents) Act 1975; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 January and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, supported by Mrs. Ann Taylor, Mr. J. W. Rooker, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, and Mr. Clive Soley, presented a Bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 so as to render it unlawful for private clubs and other associations which admit persons of both sexes to treat members of one sex less favourably than members of the other: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 January and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

MARITIME POLLUTION (RESTRICTION PENALTIES AND> ENFORCEMENT)

Mr. Peter Viggers, on behalf of Mr. Jim Spicer, supported by Mr. Gerry Neal, Mr. Peter Emery, Mr. Nicholas Baker, Viscount Cranborne, Sir John Eden, Mr. John Ward, Mr. David Atkinson and Mr. Robert Adley, presented a Bill to restrict the pollution of coastal and estuarial waters, docks, harbours, canals, rivers, the seashore and riverbanks; to give further effect to certain provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 ; to amend the law with regard to the discharge of

waste and other discarded matter to the public nuisance; to make provision for the enforcement of relevant statutory duties and of penalties under regulations made in pursuance of such statutory duties; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 February and to be printed [Bill 26].

PAROCHIAL CHARITIES (NEIGHBOURHOOD TRUSTS)

Mr. Douglas Hogg, on behalf of Sir Marcus Kimball, supported by Mr. T. Benyon, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Tom Bradley, and Mr. Charles Morrison, presented a Bill to provide for the better use of parochial charities for the poor by their amalgamation into neighbourhood trusts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February and to be printed [Bill 27].

RACE RELATIONS AND IMMIGRATION

Mr. Jim Marshall, supported by Mr. Alexander W. Lyon, Mr. S. C. Silkin, Mr. Stan Thorne, Mr. Tom Torney, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. John Sever, and Mr. David Winnick, presented a Bill to amend the Public Order Act 1936 as amended by the Race Relations Act 1976 so as to provide further for the prevention of incitement to racial hatred; and to clarify the meaning of illegal entrant in section 33 of the Immigration Act 1971: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 January and to be printed [Bill 28].

DANGEROUS HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS (CHILD SAFETY) PACKAGING

Mr. John Forrester, supported by Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. R. B. Cant, Mr. David Ennals, Mr. Ron Lewis, Mr. John Sever, and Mr. Gwlym Roberts, presented a Bill to extend the use of child resistant closures to certain dangerous products in common household use: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January and to be printed [Bill 29].

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Fergus Montgomery, supported by Mr. Tom Arnold, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, Mr. Andrew Faulds, Mr. Tim Sainsbury, Mr. Phillip Whitehead, Mr. Mike Thomas, and Mr. Harry Greenway, presented a Bill to amend the procedure laid down in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 so as to give the Secretary of State discretionary powers over references to the Restrictive Practices Court by the Director of Fair Trading of any restrictive practice which the Director considers to be significant: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 February and to be printed [Bill 30].

INDUSTRIAL DEAFNESS

Mr. Ron Leighton, presented a Bill to widen the definition of and grounds for compensation for industrial deafness; to fix a maximum level of and exposure to noise and to restrict certain frequencies within and around working environments; to make provision for other preventative noise matters; to make financial provision for existing deafness caused by industrial noise; and for


purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February and to be printed [Bill 31].

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Orders of the Day — Her Majesty's Prisons

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House, believing that conditions in Her Majesty's Prisons are now both an affront to a civilised society and a continued threat to the maintenance of law and order within the United Kingdom, calls upon the Home Secretary to meet the crisis of overcrowding by reducing both the number of offenders sentenced to imprisonment and the lengths of those custodial sentences which must be imposed, and to introduce those reforms which would enable the Prison Services to treat offenders in a way consistent with the real objects of the penal system.
Neither the existence nor the extent of the crisis within our prisons is, I believe, in dispute. We have recently had dramatic evidence provided, for example, by the governors of Wormwood Scrubs prison and Manchester prison in their letters to The Times and The Daily Telegraph. Adding to the drama and the serious nature of the crisis is a statement that I understand has been made today by the Prison Officers Association at Strangeways, which has announced that it will accept into that prison no more prisoners on remand or prisoners committed to it by magistrates' courts until it has received from the Home Secretary a written assurance concerning the date on which new building in that prison will begin. I emphasise that I neither applaud nor support such unilateral action. However, it seems that that action, like a statement that I understand has been made on behalf of all prison governors to the Home Secretary today, is certain evidence of the conditions that are now applying in British prisons.
I am told that there are now 1,600 prisoners in Strangeways, which at best was designed to accommodate 1,021. I do not wish to dwell on the evidence provided by the more dramatic sources, such as prison officers and prison governors, who have recently made their position clear. We have a more authoritative and in every way a more important source of evidence from which to describe the degradation which is now our prison system. It states:
two or three men crowded into a small and deteriorating cell in boredom and futility with no integral sanitation facilities and crowded for up to 23 hours each day.
It continues:
less and less attention, training and work experience".
The third passage states:
more and more frustration and resentment building up among men and women who are obliged to live every hour of every day by the strict routine associated with minimum free association and few facilities.
That indictment of our present prison system was made by the Home Secretary when speaking to Sunderland Conservatives two months ago. As well as winning high marks and, from me at least, high praise for his description of the crisis, the right hon. Gentleman deserves equal commendation for his prescription of the cure. He said:
Our task is to seek to reduce both the numbers of offenders sentenced to imprisonment and the length of those sentences which must be imposed.


It is those words that make up the bulk of the Opposition's motion, a motion which I understand will not gain the Home Secretary's support although it repeats his words exactly. We have tabled the motion because we hope to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he and the Government are about to turn platitude into policy. We disagree with neither his prescription nor his account of life in our prisons.
We know that the one imaginative proposal to be made during the past two years has been abandoned. I do not propose to follow the strange semantic argument that took place in another place on whether that proposal had been abandoned because the judiciary had vetoed it or had given "wise advice" on which the right hon. Gentleman eventually acted. Whatever the reason and whatever the relationship between the right hon. Gentleman, the judges and the magistrates, the plan to release some prisoners after serving one third of their custodial sentence and requiring them for the next third to be out of prison but under constant supervision has been dropped. That real prospect of removing substantial numbers from the prison system has been abandoned. It has been replaced by a plan that is described rather paradoxically as a modified suspended sentence, which on the Government's admission will have nothing like the effect on the prison population that the original plan, proposed by the right hon. Gentleman and subsequently abandoned, would have had. The modified proposal may have no effect on the prison population.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The right hon. Gentleman has been describing the evils of overcrowding in our prisons but it is not suggested in the motion that the most important contribution which could be made to easing that problem would be the provision of new prison accommodation. That remedy is set out in the Government's amendment. I wonder why the right hon. Gentleman is going on so much about other alternatives instead of directing his mind to providing extra prison accommodation.

Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman will apply his normal rule of patience, he will discover that I do not advocate that solution because I do not believe in it. I do not believe that additional prison places are the answer. New prison places are, but they should be places that accommodate a substantially smaller prison population. If I may correct the hon. Gentleman as well as command the attention of the Home Secretary, I was not describing the evils of our present system, but quoting the Home Secretary's description of the evils of that system. It is on his definition of degradation that we in the Opposition stand, and on which I hope the right hon. Gentleman continues to stand in the debate.
I repeat that the new scheme that the Home Secretary has introduced as a second best alternative to the one that he has dropped may not reduce the prison population. In our submission what we need above all is a substantial and immediate reduction in the numbers of men and women serving custodial sentences. The truth is—

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The criminals should cease attacking and robbing people, so that there would be fewer criminals in prison.

Mr. Hattersley: I shall deal with that attitude, which I shall later describe as being as unintelligent as it is barbarous. However, before I move on to that, I shall describe what I believe to be the position.
In this country we send too many people to prison. Many of those who have to be incarcerated go to prison for far too long. In 1937 the prison population averaged each day a little more than 10,000. Now it fluctuates between 44,000 and 46,000. There has been an increase in the 14 to 17 age group, the prison population of young people having quadrupled over the last 15 years.
That enormous prison population is largely accommodated in Victorian institutions, in conditions that the Victorians themselves would not have tolerated. They would not have tolerated three men in a cell for 23 hours a day or workshops that are closed because staff cannot provide adequate supervision. They would not have tolerated prisoners who enjoy the luxury of one bath every seven days.
While in some ways there has been a deterioration from Victorian standards, the worst of Victorian facilities have been maintained, such as the obligation to slop out rather than enjoy proper sanitary facilities. All that seems absolutely intolerable. I hope that the Home Secretary says that it is intolerable to him and that he does not propose to tolerate it any longer.
Perhaps in some ways paradoxically, only in Northern Ireland are our prisons anything like acceptable to the standards of a civilised community. Perhaps one of the things that we should do is to have a crash building programme in Great Britain to provide facilities here of the sort that are enjoyed—if that is the right description—in Northern Ireland.
I emphasise to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), because I failed to explain this to him at first, that I do not want a facility of 44,000 or 46,000 modern places, but a substantial reduction in numbers. The men and women who must remain in prison—the residual minimum—should be housed in decent facilities.

Mr. Keith Best: I have considerable sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman says, as I hope the House will hear if I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that this is a new phenomenon, a problem that has occurred only in the last 2½ years? If not, will he say what his Government, of which he was a member, did, and how they addressed their minds to the problem when he was in office?

Mr. Hattersley: The point that I hope the hon. Gentleman already knows, if he has prepared a speech, is that the prison population has substantially increased over the last three years. I do not suggest that the problem did not exist. Of course, the prison population has increased. Those are matters that should not be in dispute. The figures are there and available. I do not pretend that there were not too many people in prison when I had the honour to serve as one of Her Majesty's Ministers. However, I insist that the position has substantially deteriorated. The things that governors and prison officers have said over the last months and the breakouts and disturbances in the last two years are comparatively recent phenomena as a result of the figure approaching and perhaps breaking the crisis barrier.
The hon. Gentleman will discover when I reach the end of my speech that I hope that the matter will be decided


not as one of party dispute, but as one of both parties facing a crisis. If he wants the debate to degenerate to the level of party dispute that is his problem, but it is not my attitude and I believe that it is not that of the House or of the country.
More appropriate is the objective analysis of what happens in Britain and the proper comparison of the people whom we send to prison in this country with those who are sent to prison in other parts of Western European society. Our figure for convicted prisoners who are serving their sentences is 80 per 100,000 of the population. In Holland it is only 13·4, in Italy it is 21·8, in Luxembourg it is 56·8, in Denmark it is 44·8 and in Germany, which has the highest figure apart from us, it is 67·1. In France, when the figures were last available, it was 39·4, which is only half the British figure. I said "when the figures were last available" because on coming to power President Mitterrand announced an immediate amnesty for prisoners in French prisons who were convicted and sentenced for crimes that he did not believe justified custodial sentences and were causing overcrowding in French prisons, a factor that he found unacceptable.
One of the things that the Home Secretary must do in the light of what the governors and prison officers have told him, and of all the evidence that has been presented to him, is to consider whether he should have a general amnesty for the many people, whom I shall describe in a moment, who are presently in British prisons and who, by any standards of reason, sense, and humanity, should not be there. Surely he agrees that there are men and women in our prisons who not only should not be there but should never have been sent there. Men and women have been sent to prison for maintenance and small fine defaults. There are prostitutes convicted of soliciting, and drunks, beggars and the homeless, guilty of sleeping rough. We need immediate legislation to remove those offenders from the categories of custodial sentences. We need immediate Government action to remove from our prisons mentally sick men and women who are there only because hospitals will not accept them.
I do not pretend that removing those categories from custodial sentence will result in a dramatic reduction in the prison population—it would be rather less than 4 per cent. While I do not pretend that that would make a dramatic reduction, first I believe that it is right and, secondly, I believe that it is a step in the right direction which, together with some of the other proposals that I have advanced to the House, would make a substantial, if not dramatic, reduction.
My next proposal concerns prisoners on remand. The record for the whole United Kingdom for holding prisoners on remand compares favourably with at least half the other countries in Western Europe. However, the entire United Kingdom record is improved because of the average period spent on remand in Scotland. That is not the same for England and Wales. In Scotland there is an admirable system of requiring a man or woman to be brought to trial within 110 days of committal or requiring that man or woman to be allowed out there and then on bail. That system does not undermine the processes of Scottish justice, but concentrates the courts' and advocates' minds on the necessity to get on with the trial. When one considers the periods for which men and women are held on remand, one sees that a similar rule should be introduced in England and Wales. It is wrong that often an innocent man or woman may have to wait six months

in prison for the opportunity to demonstrate his or her innocence. A reduction in the period of remand, as well as being right in itself, would also be a second step towards limiting the size of the prison population.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: How many?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) sitting down—indeed, lying down—cries "How many?" The answer depends on how quickly his profession would respond to the 110-day rule. I cannot put a precise figure on it, but I believe that it is right in itself.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: There are many estimates, one of which my hon. Friend is about to give me, although I shall not necessarily endorse it.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I know that my right hon. Friend will endorse what I shall say. He will recall that the May committee referred to the fact that 44 per cent. of those held in custody on remand were subsequently found not guilty or given a non-custodial sentence. The May committee referred to this practice as a scandal. Not only are many of these people at least technically innocent, but invariably they are held in the most appalling conditions in our overcrowded local prisons. That is certainly an affront to any civilised society.

Mr. Hattersley: I endorse every word that my hon. Friend has spoken. The only shortcoming of his intervention was that it did not answer the point made by the hon. Member for Grantham. My hon. Friend did not do so, because I do not think that an answer is possible. I suspect that the hon. Member for Grantham knows that no figure can be given. I hope that, as a distinguished member of the legal profession, the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is wrong that an innocent man or woman should sometimes be required to wait six months to demonstrate his or her innocence.
I make a third suggestion as to how the prison population can be reduced. That is by the implementation of the one part of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure with which I am in enthusiastic agreement—part II. The creation of a national prosecution service, staffed by solicitors and barristers who work independently of the local police force, would in my view avoid many of the present prosecutions that now send people to prison in an unnecessarily arbitrary way.
I emphasise for a second time that those three suggestions do not constitute a policy that would reduce the prison population sufficiently dramatically, but they are a beginning, and the Home Secretary should implement my more radical proposals.
We must legislate across a wide spectrum of the law for lower maximum sentences. If there are lower maximum sentences, the evidence suggests that the courts will impose a lower sentence when they determine where, within the maximum, the penalty ought to fall.
I convince myself that the Home Secretary agrees with that general proposition, but the difference between him and me is that he wants to move by exhortation rather than by legislation. In Leicester two months ago, when speaking to local magistrates, he said that in his view there ought to be shorter sentences, but the evidence again suggests that exhortation to shorter sentences will not


produce the results that he and I both want to see. There must be legislation to reduce maximum sentences before a reduction is reflected in general sentencing policy.
We shall convince the public of the efficacy of that policy—and only that will be acceptable to the House—only if we examine the purposes of imprisonment in a more rational and objective way than they have been examined in the past. We must move away from the idea that sentences must inevitably and always be either a fine or a custodial sentence. We should begin to introduce alternative penalties that will deter and punish in the way that fines and prison are supposed to do, but which will avoid the reckless waste of months spent in prison.
We should examine the whole range of punishments at least for serious crimes, excluding crimes of violence, and decide how many would be more appropriately punished by an obligation to serve the community in some way to right the wrong that has been done and by a duty to provide some sort of restitution.
For instance, it seems absurd that men and women convicted of an offence involving goods to which others are entitled, theft, fraud, or even the regular refusal to pay maintenance to wives and families should be sent to prison in a way that makes it impossible for them to make any restitution for the damage that they have done.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a third of our prison population is made up of those convicted of burglary? What would he do with the burglars?

Mr. Hattersley: Some of them might be better occupied outside prison than inside prison.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: They would be burgling.

Mr. Hattersley: That demonstrates one of the hon. Gentleman's prejudices. One of my convictions is that they are no less likely to burgle after they come out of prison.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: They will not do it while they are inside.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman says that they will not do so while inside, but even he would not expect people convicted of burglary to be inside for ever. I want to create a society in which crimes are less likely to be committed, rather than an unthinking society that considers punishing individuals only once a crime has been committed. It is enormously simplistic to say that all burglars ought automatically to be imprisoned.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will my right hon. Friend remind the critics across the Chamber of the experience in Holland where, in 1973, it was deliberately decided to cut the rate of sentencing by about half? There has been no increase in the crime rate there, which was then greater than the crime rates in other Western European countries.

Mr. Hattersley: That is one of the clear implications from the figures of imprisonment that I gave in my comparison with other Western European countries. No one is suggesting that, inherently, those countries are more law-abiding than we are. Nor is anyone suggesting the obverse—that because of the small amount of custodial sentencing they have experienced rampant crime waves

that we have somehow avoided. The truth is that different penal systems have achieved better results than ours. My contention remains that non-custodial sentences, examined instance by instance by the Home Secretary and applied when desirable, would produce a better result.
Of course, all this will need some money for hostels and more probation officers as well as many other additional resources, but prisons cost money as well. At present it costs a minimum of £7,000 a year to keep a man in prison. I believe that that money could be far better spent on a more progressive way of deterring and preventing crime.
We should understand what happens when a man is sent to prison. We should examine why a man or woman is sent to prison in the first place. The hard fact of the matter—and this in some ways refutes the point made by the hon. Member for Grantham—is that nothing is more likely to send a man to prison for a second time than sending him to prison for the first time. If we want to reduce the prison population, the avoidance of sending first offenders to prison, or people being sent there at an unnecessarily early stage, is an absolute necessity for all of us who want to see a general improvement.
I know that the Government accept that point of view. I also appreciate that one of their most important tasks is to convince the public that by reducing sentences and taking some crimes out of the realm of custodial sentence they will not be undermining the entire basis of the prison system as well as the prospects for law and order.
One educational job which must be done concerns the reason why we send people to prison. Almost all hon. Members—certainly those educated in the 1950s—believe that people are sent to prison for moral improvement and social regeneration. The hard facts of the last 30 years are that that has not happened, and that the opposite often happens. If men or women leave prison improved, that is probably because of their resources rather than those of the prison.
Prisons exist for three purposes. One is to punish, one to deter and one to protect from society those who must be permanently excluded from the continuing damage and injury they might do. If we consider prison in those terms, rather than believing in its reformative role, we shall consider more rationally how long men and women need to be incarcerated in order to maintain the deterrent and provide the punishment. We need to consider rationally the alternatives to prison as a punishment.
This is only half a party point, but I know that the Home Secretary has some conversion and explanation to do within his own party, which contains the people who naturally and properly influence him most. I recall the lady at the Conservative Party conference who went to the rostrum shaking a pair of handcuffs at the assembled delegates. She had the remarkable good fortune of being almost one of my constituents. She explained that, although she felt some moral guilt, she could not bring herself or find it within her heart to feel sorry for those in prison, irrespective of how degrading and intolerable were the conditions in which they lived.
I hope that the Home Secretary will do his best to argue against that attitude. He has chosen to be unpopular within his party in other good causes in the past, and I hope that he will have the courage and farsightedness to do the same again. The attitude of those who say "What does it matter what happens to them once they are inside? Since they are offenders, let them be treated in the most barbarous way", seems to be as foolish as it is uncivilised.
What we now do with too many offenders is to incarcerate them in a way which wastes money and lives, destroys families, and patently does nothing to reduce crime. The penal system as it now operates is not having the deterrent effect for which much of society hoped. I repeat that once people have been inside they have almost a prescription for going to prison again. Our chief and principal obligation, in terms of law and order and a civilised wish and duty, is to prevent the prisons from operating as they now do.
To improve prison conditions and to make them something like tolerable, our first duty is to reduce dramatically the prison population. That would enable the prison regimes to be transformed. It would free them from a constant risk of disturbance and mutiny. It would increase the status of the prison officer. It would provide the prospect of training and rehabilitation in a way that does not exist today. Most importantly, it would redeem Britain's reputation as being a civilised society applying penal policies which are conducive to the standards which we in this House claim to hold.
Even at this late hour, I ask the Home Secretary to accept the Opposition motion rather than to pursue the amendment, which is at best apologetic and at worst simply an attempt at self-justification. I do not regard the debate today as a party political affair. I have attempted to advance my case in essentially non-political terms.
I have described what the Opposition believe to be a national emergency. The Home Secretary should choose to work with the entire House in facing and overcoming the emergency. I therefore hope that he will accept our motion rather than choose to divide the House and pretend that this is a matter of proper party controversy. It is not. It is a matter which equally concerns, exercises and worries all men and women of good will who want Britain to be a truly civilised place in which law and order are properly and reasonably preserved.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House, recognising that, as a result of increasing crime and decades of neglect, conditions in many of Her Majesty's Prisons are now both an affront to a civilised society and a continued threat to law and order, endorses the Government's strategy of providing new and improved prison accommodation through a sustained building programme, and of seeking the reduction in the prison population by encouraging the use by the courts of non-custodial sentences and shorter sentences of imprisonment, consistent with the need to protect the public".
I shall explain to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) why it is right not to support his motion and why I believe that the amendment sets out the basic strategy that I shall put before the House. However, I assure him that I do not approach the matter in any party political sense. He knows that if I did that I could make the most devastating case against the previous Labour Government, of which he was a member, on every front that he has spoken about today. I shall not do that, because I agree with him that we must approach these serious problems as a united House.
I welcome the debate as an opportunity for the House to discuss frankly the grave difficulties facing the prison system and the options open to the Government in confronting them. I intend to describe the Government's

strategy for dealing with the problems of the prison system—problems which are certainly in part the product of neglect and national indifference.
That is why the Government have taken the lead during the past two years in opening up the prison system to the public gaze. We have exposed the human consequences of the decay of the prison estate and the overcrowding that results from a prison population well in excess of the accommodation available for it. My ministerial colleagues in the Home Office have repeated the message time and again, both in the House and elsewhere, that conditions in some of our prisons are, in the words of the director-general of the prison service, "an affront to civilised society". The message has been reinforced in a number of recent television programmes. Because of the Government's openness of approach, there is now probably more public understanding of prison conditions than at any time in the recent past.
The problems are perhaps now too well known to require elaboration. I should, however, like to remind the House of one or two stark facts about their effects on the people within the system, both staff and inmates. No new closed prison or borstal was built in England and Wales in the 40 years between 1918 and 1958. As a result, 60 per cent. of adult male prisoners are accommodated in inadequate Victorian buildings. Just as important, about half the prison staff work in those inadequate conditions. That is bad enough. Yet the worst conditions are often found in the temporary wartime buildings which have reached the end of their useful life but which cannot, while the prison population remains high, be relinquished.
The House will be well aware of the size of the prison population. The latest total is about 44,000 as against certified normal accommodation of less than 39,000. In practice, more than 37,000 means a degree of overcrowding. The global figures mask considerably greater overcrowding in local prisons. For example, on 31 October Birmingham prison, with room for 537 prisoners, held 927, of whom 576 were three to a cell. The sharing of cells is not necessarily wrong in itself, but when it is enforced and three to a cell it is intolerable. The weight of numbers imposes enormous strains on the ability of prison management to do more than cope. As a result of the priority afforded to manning the courts and escorting prisoners, staff are seldom available to provide more than the absolute minimum regime. There can be no dispute that conditions in some of our prisons today are quite unacceptable and that action must be taken to improve them.
The May committee paid an eloquent tribute to the staff of the prison service—a tribute I endorsed when the committee's report was published and which I wish to reinforce today. The circumstances in which many staff work make it hard for them to feel that their task has any positive aspect, and their fundamental duty of protecting the public becomes more difficult to discharge. I have spoken of the physical limitations of the prison system. There are also human limits—limits on the ability of staff to do a constructive job if they are offered no hope.
Of course, such circumstances do not apply throughout the prison service. There are some establishments which have modern facilities, which are not overcrowded, in which prisoners have access to a wide range of regime activities, and in which staff are able to play as active a role as they wish. Nevertheless, I have stressed the worst of the problems facing the prison system, because I do not


want the House to underestimate their scale or intractability. These are major problems. There is no single solution to them. The Government are, therefore, attacking them on several fronts.
I turn, first, to what is being done to increase the available resources. The Government have a substantial building programme, which should produce 5,000 new places in the 1980s. We have approved the construction of six new prisons to start over the next three years, and work on Wyland in Norfolk, a new category C prison, has already begun. The others, in order of starting, are young offender establishments at Stocken in Leicestershire and Appleton Thorn in Cheshire; a dispersal prison at Full Sutton on Humberside; two category B prisons at Garth next to Wymott and Swaleside next to Standford Hill.
I can also announce today decisions to proceed with two more new prisons—making eight in all—at Bovingdon in Hertfordshire and Lockwood in Oxfordshire, starting in 1984–85. In the longer term, we are considering, among other possibilities, a new women's prison at Featherstone near Wolverhampton and a much needed local prison in the London area at Woolwich.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the important matter of bringing new prisons into existence, will he explain why he is not prepared to use places such as Beckingham on a long-term basis until the new prisons are available? They are perfectly able to house category C prisoners.

Mr. Whitelaw: I visited the Army camp at Beckingham, which we had on a temporary basis and which we have just closed. Army camps, by their very nature, are not suitable for use as long-term prisons. They are extremely expensive to run in terms of staff, who have to live away from their homes and in very poor conditions during the period in which they are there. Nevertheless, I am extremely grateful to those who ran the temporary prisons, and to my hon. Friend's constituents for their understanding. The wartime camps are no substitute for the sort of programme that I am announcing today, although they were valuable to us during a short major emergency.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the decision by some prison officers today not to accept further remand prisoners, how can the immediate problem be resolved to their satisfaction?

Mr. Whitelaw: The prison governor is seeing the members of the Prison Officers' Association who are concerned with that problem. It would be wrong for me, when the governor is discussing these matters, to make any comments that might prejudice his discussions in the prison. I know that the House and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do that.
In addition to the new prisons that we are planning, there are 14 major capital projects at existing establishments on which we are spending £23 million in the current financial year. There are dozens of smaller schemes elsewhere. Moreover, following the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, I am able to announce an important enhancement of our redevelopment programme. In 1982–83, a substantially larger sum of money will be

provided for this purpose than had previously been planned. During the 1980s, we are planning major reconstruction projects at over 60 establishments which will, among other things, bring much improved access to sanitation.
In present economic circumstances, this is a substantial investment in the future of the prison service. We have set in hand the most ambitious programme of building and reconstruction this century. Indeed, if it had been undertaken in the past it would have alleviated many of the problems that the Government inherited. Nevertheless, it is only a part of the solution to those problems, and, I am afraid, not the larger part.
There are two reasons why an expansion of resources cannot be a complete answer to the problems of the prison service. First, the legacy of the past is such that a considerable building programme is needed simply to replace accommodation which will need to be taken out of use as a result of decay or through hazards common to any prison system. I said that 5,000 new prison places should be provided during the 1980s. How many of those would be additional places will depend on the unpredictable factors that I have mentioned.
Secondly, new buildings are for tomorrow; the problem is with us today. The time which a new establishment takes to build could be shortened by disregarding the normal processes of local consultation, but I know that hon. Members lay much store by those processes. Let them try to build a prison in any part of the country, and find what the local Members of Parliament have to say in the course of the planning procedures.
We cannot, in the short term, create prisons that will meet all the deficiencies of the past and all the demands that are being made upon the prisons now. We have soldiered on with an inadequate system for long enough, and successive Governments have done too little about it. Perhaps they have done no more than reflect a public feeling that there are better things on which to spend our money than creating decent conditions in the prisons. But if that feeling exists, we cannot as a society simultaneously demand a sentencing policy that assumes the existence of resources on a scale that we have not provided. We must have fewer prisoners. For lesser offences we must have shorter sentences.
Getting public understanding of this is not easy. We have, above all, to retain public confidence in our determination to maintain good order in our society. With 2½ million serious offences being reported to the police last year, and reported crime having risen in recent years by about 5 per cent. a year, the public expect an effective response to crime from the police, the courts, the prisons and the probation service. There are all too many offenders who, on any showing, must expect to go to prison for their offences. But that need not, and cannot, mean that the use of imprisonment must stay at its present level.
No one doubts—the courts least of all—that imprisonment must be the last resort. The emphasis has for years been on extending the alternatives, and of exhausting those alternatives before recourse to imprisonment. Far and away the most frequently imposed penalty is the fine, and the courts make extensive use of other methods which enable offenders to be dealt with in the community.
Last year, nearly 30,000 offenders were put on probation. That was a welcome increase of more than 20 per cent. on the previous year. In addition, 20,000 offenders were made the subject of community service


orders. That was an increase of more than 40 per cent. over the previous year. I am glad to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) in his place today, because he played a major part in introducing community service orders under the Conservative Government of that time. Community service has existed for less than 10 years. In that short time it has established a significant place in sentencing. It accounts for 4 per cent. of all sentences imposed for indictable offences. If imprisonment had kept pace with the increase in the number of offenders, our prison population would be many thousands greater than the present crisis level.
Offenders must be dealt with in the community, wherever that is consistent with the protection of the public. Despite the need for restraints in public expenditure, I have enlarged the probation service so that it can offer the courts convincing alternatives to custody. This year there was provision for an increase amounting to 50 extra probation officers. Following the decisions announced by the Chancellor earlier this afternoon, I am glad to say that I shall be able to make available to the probation service additional resources for more rapid growth in 1982–83 than had previously been planned. Overall, there is now provision in that year for 150 additional probation officers compared with this year.
During the last year we have provided the full cost of 86 new places in approved probation and bail hostels and have increased our contribution towards the number of such places in voluntary sector schemes. I acknowledge what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) has done in many of those cases. That number has in turn risen by about 250 since 1 April 1981.
But no one should be under the illusion that our prison problems can be solved easily by diverting offences from custody. We can all agree that in an ideal world we should prefer our prisons to he rid of some offenders—those convicted of offenders of drunkenness, the mentally disordered and fine defaulters. But there are no simple alternatives for dealing with them, not least the fine defaulters, for whom imprisonment must be the ultimate sanction. Offenders in those three categories in any event amount only to 1,000 to 1,500 in the prison population of 44,000 at any one time.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The Home Secretary twice said that there is a crisis in our prisons and that the problem is today's problem. Why does he not attempt to create an interim breathing space to deal with the problem by granting an amnesty to all those serving sentences of 18 months or less so that they can be released six months before the end of their sentences? He has the powers now under the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980 which would release immediately 5,000 or 6,000 petty offenders and another 5,000 or 6,000 in six months? That would provide an important breathing space for the hard-pressed prison service and the staff who work in it.

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall come to some of those matters later in my speech. If one makes such decisions, it is crucial, as I have said, that the House should take public opinion with it. One must be careful not to make moves with which one cannot take public opinion at a time of rising crime rates, about which many people are worried.
The great majority of prisoners are in prison because they have committed serious offences, not once but

repeatedly. Just to take one figure, there were more than 10,000 men in prison on 30 June last year for offences of burglary. More than 8,000 were known to have three or more previous convictions. The public want the police, quite rightly, to detect more of those who commit burglaries. People expect the courts to deal with them. In many cases, therefore, the question is not whether there should be a custodial sentence, but whether a shorter sentence will do.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It will not.

Mr. Whitelaw: That is my hon. Friend's opinion. It may not always be the opinion of all those in the legal profession, all judges and all magistrates.
How is that to be brought about? First, we must consider the criminal justice system in its entirety. Many of our present problems arise from the fact that we have all tended to consider its component parts—the police, the courts, the prisons and the probation service—in isolation from one another. We also tend to see the role of Parliament in isolation from the role of the courts. Neither Parliament nor the courts alone hold the key to the problem. Parliament and the courts complement each other. We in Parliament determine the resources that the country can afford to devote to the criminal justice system. I have made it clear that we cannot provide the prison space required to enable the courts to continue using imprisonment at its present rate. Parliament also lays down in statute the framework of the sentencing powers available to the courts. Within those powerss it is for the courts—and rightly so—to decide how each individual offender should be dealt with. The total prison population, which causes us so much anxiety, is the sum of thousands of those individual decisions.
The Opposition motion cannot, in my judgment, be supported, because it suggests that the Home Secretary can directly reduce the numbers of people sentenced to imprisonment and the length of sentences imposed. That over-simplifies the position. It is for the courts—within the framework laid down by Parliament—to determine who of those brought before them and convicted should be sentenced to imprisonment and for how long, not for the Home Secretary. Parliament must set the framework best suited to the needs of the system as a whole, but the courts must retain their discretion in individual cases.
Changing the statutory framework of powers will, therefore, not by itself solve the prisons crisis. It is suggested, for example, that we should reduce maximum penalties. It is not the maximum penalties—which the courts reserve for the most serious offenders—but the length of sentences imposed on ordinary offenders that creates the pressure. Substantial prison sentences are sometimes necessary, but we can afford them only for really serious offenders.
The judgments of the Court of Appeal, under the leadership of the Lord Chief Justice, make that principle abundantly clear. In the case of Upton, the Court of Appeal emphasised that judges should take into account the conditions in the prison system. In imposing sentences the courts have a number of objectives: to deter the offender and others, to register society's disapproval of serious offending, and to give society protection from the offender's activities. The courts are bound to have those considerations in mind in deciding the length of sentence. The more serious the offence, the more severe the sentence.
However, there is scope for prison sentences to be shorter without the sense of proportion being lost. The Lord Chief Justice, in the Bibi judgment, said that many offenders can be dealt with equally justly and effectively by a sentence of six or nine months' imprisonment as by one of 18 months or three years. There are encouraging signs that, in consequence, shorter sentences are being imposed. The average length of sentence imposed in the latter half of last year was two months shorter in the Crown court compared with the year earlier, and nearly two weeks shorter in the magistrates' courts.
How can Parliament reinforce that trend which I believe has only just started? We suggested one possibility in the proposal for early release under supervision for short sentence prisoners which we included in the "Review of Parole" published in May. The scheme would have involved the release of prisoners serving sentences of six months to three years after one-third of their sentence. The next third would have been served under supervision in the community instead of in custody as at present. The final third would have been the existing period of remission. So the scheme would have halved the period of effective custody for offenders coming within it.
We put forward the scheme for consultation. Before embarking on so fundamental a change, we were bound to weigh very carefully the comments made on the merits of the scheme and its likely effects. There was support for the contribution that it could make towards easing the prison problems that we are debating today, but there were also widespread misgivings. The effectiveness of short periods of supervision, especially without consent, was doubted. More important, as Lord Justice Lawton and the chairman of the Magistrates' Association have made clear in recent letters to The Times, there were fears that an automatic scheme which created such large gaps between the length of sentence imposed by the court and the period of custody actually served would undermine the authority of the courts and the confidence of the public in the courts' ability to protect them from recidivist offenders. In reaching my decision whether to give effect to the proposal, I was bound to take the comments made on it seriously. That is the point of consultation. It would ill befit anyone in the House, so keen as we are on consultation, to suggest that that should not be taken into account. Because its overall merits were seriously doubted and its effectiveness uncertain, I concluded that this was not the right way to proceed.
That was my decision, freely taken. I also reached the conclusion that the benefits of the kind that I was looking for through the supervised release scheme could be found by activating the power of the courts to suspend part of a prison sentence. That power is already on the statute book in section 47 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. It has the advantage, therefore, that it can be brought into effect as soon as the necessary preparations have been made, without awaiting the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill.
Our consultations with the judiciary make it clear that the courts would regard that as a valuable addition to their sentencing powers. I am accordingly making the necessary preparations in order to bring section 47 into operation in the spring. The Criminal Justice Bill that I presented today includes provision to make the operation of section 47 even more flexible by extending its availability to sentences of as little as three months and by enabling the

courts to reduce the period served in custody initially to 28 days if, through the exercise of their discretion, they think it right to do so.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: How does the Home Secretary square what he is now saying with what he said in his review of the parole system, about there being no certainty that such a proposal would reduce the prison population? More important, how does he square it with the statement made in the House by the Minister of State on 13 December 1979 that the introduction of the partially suspended sentence would increase the numbers of people held in prison? In view of those two statements, why is he proposing this measure as one that will reduce the prison population?

Mr. Whitelaw: I believe that, in view of the evidence of progress towards shorter sentences, it is right to reinforce that trend. The judges and magistrates believe that in this new climate partially suspended sentences would be a valuable addition and would reinforce the trend. I have made a choice. I did not choose some form of supervised release that would reduce the prison population, because there was no evidence that that would be so. That would depend on what the House decided to do about the discretion that it might have provided for the courts during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill. I am not pretending that partially suspended sentences are certain to reduce the prison population, but I believe that in the present climate they will probably succeed. I want to work with the judiciary in its efforts towards shorter sentences. My proposal is the best way to reinforce that trend. I have taken a decision based on my belief in what the judiciary is doing under the leadership of the Lord Chief Justice.
The climate of opinion is right for the successful introduction of partly suspended sentences. They can play a valuable part in reinforcing the trend to shorter periods in custody. It will be essential that they are used—and I believe that they will be—as a substitute for full immediate imprisonment and not instead of fully suspended sentences.
Parliament has made it clear that the present level of imprisonment is too high and that the present level of the prison population must be drastically reduced. That can be achieved without going soft on the minority of violent and serious offenders. I believe that the courts understand that, but the courts make individual decisions. They do not have the means to regulate the system as a whole. That is for Parliament. If the approach that I have outlined—the courts' move towards shorter sentences reinforced by improved powers—does not afford the prison system the relief that it so desperately needs, Parliament will have to intervene. Parliament cannot stand by if the system threatens to break down.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: What is the Home Secretary doing about it?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman does not have much patience. In my next sentence I shall say what I am doing. I hope that he will give me a chance to do so.
The Criminal Justice Bill includes permanent provisions with similar effect to those included in the temporary provisions legislation passed to meet last year's emergency. Under these powers the Home Secretary of the day would have to lay an order before Parliament which would—subject to an affirmative resolution—have a direct


effect on the level of the prison population. The order would have to specify the categories of offender to be released up to six months before their normal remission date. The powers are carefully drawn so that early release can be limited to suitable offenders—for example, offenders nearing the end of sentences for non-violent offences.
I have never sought to minimise the dangers facing our prisons. I do not do so now. Breakdown is all too close. I do not seek to evade that, but I ask the House to recognise the Government's comprehensive strategy for improving prison conditions which is set out in the amendment. A reorganised prison department is carrying through substantial changes to bring increased efficiency throughout the system. An independent inspectorate has been appointed. The Government are carrying forward a substantial programme of new prisons and improvements, repairs and maintenance to existing prisons. They have thus embarked on the biggest prison improvement programme undertaken by any Government this century—and at a time of scarce economic resources.
The Government have given every encouragement to the use of non-custodial sentences. We have devoted increased resources to the probation service to encourage probation orders and community service orders. We have reversed the neglect of attendance centres for young adults. The Government have supported the lead given by the Lord Chief Justice for shorter sentences in appropriate cases. Now we are planning to build on that by the introduction of partly suspended sentences which the judges and magistrates believe will reinforce the trend towards shorter sentences. Finally, in order to mobilise public opinion behind the need for prison reform, we have opened up the prison system to the public gaze and will continue to do so.
That, in total, is easily the biggest reform of the prison system undertaken by any Government in modern times. That is the programme that I am asking the House to support in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and also the Shadow Cabinet on tabling the motion which gives the House a rare opportunity to debate what the Home Secretary called a neglected subject. Both the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend referred to the crisis in the prison system. Indeed, when the Home Secretary spoke to the Cumbria probation and after-care service on 13 September he said that the crisis was undermining the criminal justice system. He said that if we did not take speedy action we might have a crisis by the spring of next year.
There is a crisis. That is generally accepted on both sides of the House. The crisis is in numbers. There are 44,500 prisoners now—the figure was 45,500 a few months ago—in accommodation designed to accommodate fewer than 39,000 prisoners. There are 17,000 prisoners two or three to cells that were built for one in Victorian times.
There are 17,000 prisoners locked in their cells for 23 out of every 24 hours and denied proper access to educational, recreational or work facilities. Moreover, they are held in the most appalling, degrading, disgusting, dehumanising and brutalising conditions that no one in this House would inflict upon animals. If we suggested that

cattle or dogs should be held in the same disgusting and degrading conditions as exist in many of our local prisons, there would be an immediate public outcry and controversy, and rightly so. But we are subjecting many of our fellow citizens to precisely those conditions over inordinately long periods.
The Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and everyone else who has taken an interest in this subject are aware of that, acknowledge it and point to it. To give him credit, the Home Secretary has probably done more than anyone else in this House, certainly more than the two previous Home Secretaries, to draw attention to the problem in our prisons. He has spoken throughout the country on every conceivable occasion, and before the Select Committee, sometimes using his words very extravagantly, but always pointing to this disgraceful problem and the need for remedial action. But he has done nothing substantive to reduce the prison population. For all the trumpeting and the fanfare of the package presented today, very little will result in the short or medium term significantly to reduce those numbers.
The Home Secretary has nailed his colours to this mast. On one occasion he said that he put his political reputation on the line in reducing the prison population. But he has failed, even though he has been in office for two years. I accept that there have been decades of neglect. The Labour Government were no better, and in many ways much worse, but that in no way exonerates the Home Secretary from his responsibilities, particularly in the light of his acknowledgment of the need for remedial action.
Many options and opportunities are available to the Home Secretary. For example, he could have accepted my suggestion during an earlier intervention. He could announce an immediate amnesty for all prisoners serving sentences of 18 months or less. They could be released six months before the end of their sentence. That would immediately remove 5,000 or 6,000 from the prison population, and another 5,000 or 6,000 in six months' time. Those are not negligible numbers, but it is extremely important to provide a breathing space to prisoners, staff, and to the Home Secretary himself, so that a wider package of measures of a more permanent nature can be devised and implemented. The Home Secretary had that option, to which he referred as a potential future option that he might use. It is available now. He does not need to introduce legislation. Such an action would not involve additional resources. There would be no need for more probation officers or hostels. There would be no need for the other excuses traditionally given as the reason why action cannot be taken. Indeed, he is not arguing against the idea in principle, because today he accepted the principle of such an amnesty by indicating that it is enshrined in the Bill presented, but not published, today.
If the Home Secretary is deeply serious—and I believe that he is—in what he has repeatedly said over the past two years and has reiterated today, that was one area where he could have taken immediate and effective action, but yet again he has put it off to some far-distant future date. He could also have legislated in the Criminal Justice Bill—we understand that it is not in the Bill—to reduce the length of prison sentences. That is something that has been put forward not only by the advisory council on the penal system and the parliamentary penal affairs group, but also by the recent report of the all-party Select Committee on Home Affairs, which was unanimous in this respect.
In evidence to that Committee, and elsewhere, the Home Secretary has acknowledged that a reduction in the lengths of sentences is the most significant single feature that could reduce the prison population substantially. Whether he does it by continuing to exhort the judiciary or by legislation may be a matter of judgment and choice. But certainly the evidence that we have as to the way in which the judiciary has responded in the past to attempts to get it to mould its behaviour to what Parliament and the public deem to be appropriate does not suggest that it is likely to reduce the lengths of sentences in practice over a long period.
The evidence for that is provided by the way in which sentences have increased over precisely the decade since parole was introduced. Coincidentally—I do not suggest that there was any conspiracy—the increasing lengths of sentences imposed by the judiciary since the introduction of the parole system have wiped out all the benefits that came from that system. That may be another reason, which the Home Secretary did not produce, for not introducing release on licence.
Those are just two things that could be done. There were many other options available to the Home Secretary—not least that of supervised release, which appeared to be his own favoured option, which he endorsed and recommended in recent months on several occasions in different parts of the country. That, too, would have had the immediate impact—a third; a third; and a third—of reducing the prison population by 7,000. It may not have had the long-term consequences and benefits that many of us on the both sides of the House desire, but it would, at the very minimum, have provided that essential and crucial breathing space for the prison service.
I shall not enter into the argument as to whether the Home Secretary has capitulated, and, if so, to whom—whether it was the Tory law and order lobby at the Tory Party conference, or the allegedly enlightened considered views of the judiciary—except to say that on the evidence of the letter quoted by the Home Secretary, Lord Justice Lawton's letter in The Times, although Lord Justice Lawton clearly said that he was against this proposal, he also intimated that both he and the rest of the judiciary would implement it in practice if that was Parliament's will. That is quite a different thing from any suggestion that the judiciary on that occasion was thwarting either the Home Secretary or the proposed will of Parliament.

Mr. Whitelaw: I should like to confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said. Constitutionally, it is extremely important that it should be so confirmed. There never was any question in Lord Justice Lawton's letter or in anything that was said to me by anyone in the judiciary that the judiciary would not have loyally worked with the scheme if I decided to introduce it through Parliament. That was clear from the start. There have been suggestions otherwise. I want to confirm absolutely, as Lord Justice Lawton sets out, that that was the judiciary's position and is its position.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Then there is every reason in the world why that proposal should be in the Criminal Justice Bill, and no reason why it should not be there, given what the Home Secretary has said. During his speech he paid

careful attention to those who were against the proposal. I acknowledge that we are all entitled to have a judgment and a different view of matters. But, as the Home Secretary has confirmed, no one has suggested that, if it were the will of Parliament, it would not be implemented.
The Home Secretary did not indicate that many people supported the proposal, not least, again, the Select Committee on Home Affairs. There are Opposition Members present today who were members of that Committee and who supported the proposal. The Home Secretary has had wide all-party support in the House. For some reason he has chosen to disregard the political input into that debate and to take advice from other quarters, so far unspecified, which has led him to dismiss the proposal, even though he was actively in favour of it as little as two or three months ago.
There are other options, too, that were available and are still available to the Home Secretary. Not least, there is the 50 per cent. remission, which operates so successfully in Northern Ireland. If we can manage to have a scheme of 50 per cent. remission without the kind of recidivism which is always assumed to occur on such occasions—or with no increase in recidivism, at least—operated effectively in Northern Ireland with all the difficulties there, there is no reason why we cannot also operate such a scheme effectively on the mainland.
Those are just a few of the perhaps more important options that would have been open or available to the Home Secretary if he had been serious and sincere in his desire to reduce the prison population. They go beyond all the other measures that I want to see and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook mentioned today because they stand on their own ground in terms of getting out of prison the mentally ill and disordered, alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, vagrants and all the others who, as my right hon. Friend said, should not be there. I was glad to hear that said from the Labour Front Bench because, if there is a Labour Government after the next election, much of what has been said today will be rammed very firmly down my right hon. Friend's throat if there is any backtracking on this issue.
All those things should have been done anyway. We should no longer have to come to the House to make out that case. The case has been made frequently and vehemently and stands on its merits. The numbers are small and relatively insignificant, but we have no right to include such people in the penal system.
Those are a few of the options that the Home Secretary could have taken and activated. What has he chosen to do instead? He said that he would build more prisons and provide more capital expenditure for refurbishment, even though he knows that the 5,000 places being provided only replace the buildings that are falling down and may not even be sufficient to replace those that will fall into disuse before the 5,000 places come into operation. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will do that even though he knows that the time between taking the decision such as the one he has announced today to build a new prison and the first prisoner entering the cells in that prison is 10 years. Work on the new prison will start in 1984 but the first prisoner will not enter the cells until 1994. Meanwhile the number of prisoners is increasing and the conditions in which they are held become more deplorable and more appalling. We have no right to hold people in such conditions.
The Home Secretary's other suggestion was a partially suspended sentence, even though the Magistrates' Association has gone on record against it, the advisory council on the penal system is against it and even though, in Question Time, on 13 December 1979, the then Minister of State, the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said:
The difficulty in introducing the measure immediately is that it is difficult to know the impact that it would have on the prison population. Even if accurate forecasts of the overall impact cannot be obtained, there is reason to believe that it would increase the number of prisoners detained for short periods."— [Official Report, 13 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 1519.]
Those are not my words, the words of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) or anyone else who wishes to see a reduction in the prison population. They are the words of one of the Home Secretary's Ministers of State. Less than two years ago the then Minister of State argued against the measure on the ground that it would increase, not reduce, the prison population. That is the one important proposal that the Home Secretary has produced today that he says will reduce the prison population.
But that is not all. The right hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) is not the only person to have said that. In May this year, the Home Office's "Review of Parole in England and Wales" referred in paragraph 58 to section 47 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and said
That section has not been activated because of fears that the new sentence would be used to give a taste of imprisonment in cases where at present the courts would impose a fully suspended sentence or non-custodial sentence. Inevitably, too, in a proportion of cases the suspended part of the sentence would be subsequently activated. Thus there can be no certainty that implementing section 47 would achieve any reduction in numbers in custody and would not confer any advantage in the treatment of individual offenders.
Therefore, only a few months ago, in May, the Home Secretary's own review of the parole system made a sustained and substantial case against the proposal that he has put forward today as his contribution to reducing the prison population.
I make my next remarks with deep regret because I have great personal respect for the Home Secretary both as a person and for what he has done in this area. I am sorry, but the Home Secretary's proposals will not do. Today, the Home Secretary has provided just another catalogue of the failures that are symptomatic of Home Secretaries on both sides of the House, who, decade after decade, have tried to grasp the important and serious nettle of how to deal humanely, compassionately and decently with the prison population.
I shall conclude by quoting from someone at the sharp end. He has to deal with the conditions that we are prepared to allow such men to work in. We have seen the unprecedented step of two prison governors writing to the press. They are not really courageous, because they are only enjoying the dispensation that the Home Secretary—according to the May committee's recommendation of openness of mind and of approach—has accorded them. Those governors are not brave or courageous to write to the press. That is the new regime. That is what we expect. They are contributing to the debate.
None has made more important and forceful contributions to the debate than the governors of Wormwood Scrubs and of Strangeways, Manchester. I

shall quote from a letter published in The Daily Telegraph, on 30 November. It was written by Mr. Norman Brown, the governor of Manchester prison. He wrote:
We just cannot go on locking men and women up, many for 23 hours a day. Why do the warnings continually given by the Prison Service go ignored?
That is a good question. Perhaps the Home Secretary will answer it. He continued:
We are the people who have to work and contain our inmates in the squalor that we do; we are the people who have to deal with the barricades, the fires, the hunger strikers, the riots, the slopping out.
Is it not time that the necessary legislation be introduced to reduce our prison population and restore the morale of the prison staff, allowing us to operate a system with decent standards and dignity, or must we go on being ignored by Parliament and the courts while they carry on talking about overcrowding for yet another 30 years.
Hon. Members cannot go on talking about the appalling conditions in our prisons for another year—let alone another 30 years.
Even the guilty have a right to minimum, decent, civilised standards. That right is now being denied them. That is an affront to human dignity—as the motion states—and is an offence against the European Convention of Human Rights. Every one of us should be deeply and thoroughly ashamed of what is done in our name, which we allow to continue. The Home Secretary bears the ultimate responsibility. It is on his head and shoulders. He started out with apparently great prospects as a reforming Home Secretary, but on the evidence of the last few years and on the evidence of the Bill's proposals I regret to say that he, like all the others, has failed and shows no sign of being a success.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: This is the first time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have attempted to catch your eye, or that of Mr. Speaker, since ceasing, this summer, to be a member of the Government. Therefore, I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having called me to speak now. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and I have been Members of Parliament for the extremely long period of 17 years. However, this is the first time that I have addressed the House from the Government Back Benches. Perhaps I cannot crave the indulgences normally given to maiden speakers. The more appropriate analogy might be for me to crave whatever indulgencies are advanced to an old maid.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is not in the Chamber. I was a junior Minister in the Home Office from 1970 to 1974. Throughout that period I was responsible for the Home Office's criminal department and for at least part of that period I was responsible for the prison service. Throughout, I believe that I was responsible for parole. I should have liked to tell the right hon. Gentleman that, as I come back to the issue seven years later, my overwhelming impression is that very little has changed.
I agree entirely with what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said about the need to look upon prison as a last resort and the need for shorter sentences. It was not so much the content as the occasional tone of voice of the right hon. Gentleman that gave the impression that all that was happening was new, that this crisis had arisen quickly and unexpectedly, and that the courts were manned by people sitting and waiting for the opportunity to send other


people to prison as quickly as possible. I do not believe that this is the true situation. I believe that little has changed since the debates that occurred between 1970 and 1974.
The figures, for instance, have changed very little. There is talk today of crisis with a prison population numbering 44,000. In 1970, the prison population was over 40,000. Of more significance are the predictions that awaited the incoming Conservative Government in that year. It was predicted that if no steps were taken to deal with the problem the prison population would rise to 42,000 by 1971–72, to 52,950 by 1975–76 and to between 62,000 and 67,000 by the end of the decade—in other words, the present year.
I hope to explain the action that was taken by that incoming Conservative Government. It is important, however, in all this talk of crisis and overcrowding, to set the figure of 44,000 against the background of the predicted increase in the prison population 10 years ago. It is also necessary to take account of the fact that indictable crime known to the police in 1970 was miming at 1·5 million offences a year. By 1974, the figure had risen to 1·9 million. In the current year, the figure is 2·5 million. A smaller proportion of those convicted of indictable crime are sent to prison today compared with 10 years ago.
The figure given by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook of 10,000 in the 1930s as against 40,000 in the 1980s is wholly meaningless. It has meaning only when examined against the rate of crime at the time. The chances are that the number of people sent to prison in the 1930s was a higher proportion of those convicted of indictable offences than is the position now. My overwhelming immediate reaction returning to this debate after seven years is that the language and the words have changed very little.
I should like to deal with three matters that have changed. First, the attitude and the awareness of society and particularly the prison service to conditions within prisons have altered. As the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) generously remarked, this is largely due to the lead given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The second change is that on this issue, as on so many, we talk today in much more strident tones, through the media, of crisis and riots. The third change that has occurred—I do not wish, like the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, to make a party political speech—is that in the intervening period, between 1974 and 1979, a Government were in power that took no action to alleviate the situation.
One cannot examine overcrowding simply in terms of numbers. Numbers alone do not mean overcrowding. One has to take numbers in relation to the capacity that exists within the prison service. In two decades of substantial increase in crime, it is inevitable that, whatever has been done to try to keep people out of prison, the figure of those going to prison would be likely to some extent to increase, although, as I have attempted to point out, the figure has been far less than predicted. If we are to provide adequately for those in prison, to get rid of the intolerable conditions and to replace some of the Victorian prisons with modern prisons, the only answer is a prison building programme.
In an Adjournment debate on 20 November, the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew), said that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had inherited a nil building programme. That is almost exactly the same situation that existed in 1970. At that time, the incoming Conservative Government inherited a situation in which 80 new places had been provided in the previous year in the whole of the prison service although the prison population then stood at about 40,000. During the following three years, we created new prison places at the rate of 2,000 a year. We left an inheritance that would have provided for 11,000 new places between 1974 and 1978 together with 9,700 starts in the same period.
That programme, devised in the early 1970s, was cut dramatically when it became the first casualty of the capital programme. The annual report on prisons in 1977 stated that the redevelopment of Victorian prisons had become more remote than at any time in the previous 30 years.
A prison building programme is essential. I welcome what the Home Secretary said about the programme. I do not believe that we can debate our penal policy as a Parliament purely to meet the everyday convenience of the availability of resources. If we are to carry out our duty to provide the facilities necessary in the fight against crime, we have to be willing to provide prison accommodation in which people can be kept in conditions of humanity and where those required by society to be punished in this manner can be humanely treated. I regret the fact that the previous Government left an inheritance of nil building and earlier cancelled a programme that they had inherited. I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has realistically taken up the matter again and provided more capital projects that many Conservative Members have argued, in another capacity, would be welcome at this time.
There are two methods of dealing with an overcrowded prison population. One is to build prisons and the other, as has been rightly said, is to reduce where possible the number of people who are sent to prison and the length of time for which they are sent there. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and to the hon. Member for Ormskirk, who spoke in terms of an amnesty, that we cannot dictate penal policy merely by short-term expediences to fit in with resources. If we want a small prison population—I believe that there is a strong case for it—we must justify it on penal grounds, not merely on the ground of financial expediency.
As I say, there is a case for having a smaller prison population. Prison must be a traumatic event, and it should be used as sparingly as possible. I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary generously said about the community service orders which we introduced in 1971 as a means of providing wider alternatives.
Moreover, we should remind judges and those who sit in courts that, when it is necessary to send a person to prison who has not been to prison before, a short sentence may be totally adequate for the purposes that they have in mind. In the past, we have criticised short sentences and have assumed that it is never right to impose a short sentence. I would rather that those people who get short sentences were dealt with in other ways, but if a court decides that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary, a


short sentence, certainly on the first occasion, can well be adequate. It is a deterrent and a retribution, which are the aims of imprisonment in those circumstances.
Inevitably, a tariff of moral guilt is built up by courts. Inevitably, the length of sentence is bound to demonstrate the court's view of the outrage created to society by the offence. Inevitably, the length of sentence imposed at the time of sentence is where the deterrent effect of the sentence is indicated.
Within the framework laid down by the House, we need to allow freedom for the courts to exercise their own judicial discretion concerning what the length of the sentence should be, but thereafter we should be willing to be far more adventurous in the use of such matters as parole as a means of ensuring that people are able to return to society.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is there not also an obligation on us to teach judges that there is a positive benefit in shorter sentencing, and that shorter sentencing does not necessarily contribute to an increase in the crime rate? Should we not teach judges what the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself knows from his experience at the Home Office?

Mr. Carlisle: I am not entirely sure that I agree with the phrase "teach judges". I believe that we should persuade those who sit in courts, at all levels, of the desirability of dealing with people in ways other than imprisonment, and convince them of the argument for short sentences when prison is imposed. I agree with that, but I am totally opposed to the suggestion in the Opposition motion that somehow arbitrary executive action by the Home Secretary should achieve that end. Surely our task as a Parliament is to set the parameters, the framework within which courts act, and to give wider opportunities for alternatives to imprisonment.
I personally would oppose a suggestion for increasing the period of remission. If we automatically increase remission, I fear that we shall increase the length of sentences that are given. I would rather advance through further use of parole, where courts can give a sentence which will be the maximum that a person will serve as a penalty, leaving it to those who watch over him during that period to decide the right moment for release.
I remain cynical of the Home Secretary's views about partial suspended sentences. I am ready to be persuaded, and I look forward to hearing the debate, even if I do not take part in it. However, I ask the Home Secretary to look at the evidence. There is no doubt that the introduction of suspended sentences in its early days increased the prison population, because the number of people who were given suspended sentences and then committed another offence during the period of suspended sentence received longer sentences than they otherwise would have been given. I question whether partial suspended sentences will achieve the Home Secretary's aims.
I accept that there is something in looking again, as the hon. Member for Ormskirk suggested, at the recommendations of the advisory committee about providing shorter maximum sentences within which the court will then have to work. I would also like to know what is the present amount of use of community service. I believe that we should widen the use of parole. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will say whether the failure rate of parole is still as low as 7 per cent., as it was in earlier years.
We ought to take up the views of Lord Justice Waller in a letter to The Times the other day, suggesting the introduction of parole for
those with sentences of 18 months or less. I know the difficulties of being unable to obtain full reports, but we now give parole through a local parole board without going through the main parole board. In my view, there are openings there. That is a more effective way, combined with the prison building programme, of meeting the crisis, if crisis be the right word, of the long-standing overcrowding in prisons. The Home Secretary should look again at the wider use of open prisons.
I cannot accept an Opposition motion which calls for executive action. That would be wrong and unacceptable to the people of our country. The motion was delivered in a critical tone of voice, and it was largely hypocritical. We should continue, start and press on with the necessary building programme and influence and persuade those people who have the difficult task of sitting in a judicial capacity of the importance of keeping sentences down, instead of the Executive attempting to interfere with that discretion.

Mr. John Sever: The right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for having delivered a party political speech. If my right hon. Friend had not taken this opportunity, which was welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), to set out the official Opposition's view on the prison service, he would have been open to the criticism that he had missed an opportunity of explaining the Opposition's view on these matters. Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a little unkind to criticise my right hon. Friend in that way.
The Home Secretary referred to the prison in Birmingham. I shall say a few words about that later. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman is mindful of the critical situation in local prisons, and Birmingham is no exception.
The Home Secretary did not respond fully to what my right hon. Friend said about the ways in which the prison population could be reduced. The arguments are well known and have been put forward in this place and elsewhere, but surely the Home Secretary could have taken the time to explain a little more fully the Government's views.
There are substantial numbers of people who, in the view of those who know about these matters, should not be in custody. The Government have not put forward a valid reason why such people cannot, in the foreseeable future, be regarded as prisoners in the category unlikely to be given custodial sentences. In fairness, most of these people are inadequate to cope with our society. They obviously need some care, guidance and attention, but they do not necessarily need the harsh regime of a prison. That is particularly true of those who are in prison because of alcoholism, drug abuse and other related matters.
There are two main strands to the argument that I wish to pursue. The first concerns the control of the offender—the punishment that deprives him of his liberty. Few in society would fail to recognise that that is


necessary. The punishment must be effective both as a measure of control of offenders and as a deterrent for others who might commit serious offences.
The second strand of the argument is a view that most people would hold. The prison policy of Her Majesty's Government should include a regime designed to rehabilitate the offender. One would hope that after a spell in prison an offender would be discouraged from committing further crime.
The humane aspect of how offenders might be treated in prison has already been mentioned. Without doubt there are considerable shortcomings in educational facilities and vocational training, and from time to time it appears that there are deficiencies in the medical attention received by inmates. Most people would agree that a custodial sentence should be a meaningful punishment to the criminal. Any crime regarded by society as unacceptable must be punished accordingly.
Many people argue that the regime in which criminals are detained should be fair and reasonable and should be conducted in such a way that it will lead to rehabilitation. The demand is that all centres—prisons, detention centres, borstal institutions, or open prisons—should be in keeping with the needs of our modern age, not those of the Victorian age.
The policy that the Home Secretary seemed to be outlining earlier gave some encouragement, which it would be churlish not to recognise. The Government have in mind to do something about the matter. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk said, it is somewhat too little and it is certainly too late. The Home Secretary is trying to contend with today's problems, but only in five years' time. That is not good enough. The Home Secretary should speed up the programme to try to overcome some of the difficulties in prisons now.
The problems of Winson Green prison in Birmingham were outlined by the Home Secretary. That prison, designed for 527 inmates, now houses 927. Of those, 576 are three to a cell. The Birmingham media have reported that the prison has often held more than 1,000 prisoners. That is getting on for twice the number of prisoners for which it was designed. When men are confined for 23 hours a day, three to a cell, that must, by any civilised standards, be regarded as totally unacceptable. The Government must address themselves to correcting the situation not only in Winson Green prison but in other prisons where similar conditions obtain.
I hope that the Minister will address himself to some specific points which I shall put to him. Will he provide some information about the ways in which prison regimes can be improved, in particular about ways of improving standards of education and vocational training? That is of paramount importance to the correction of the offender.
Widespread criticism has been expressed in the Birmingham area about prisoners' medical care and supervision. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to that. I do not wish to dwell on any case which has come to light recently, but there is public disquiet about the medical treatment being offered to prisoners. There is concern about the possibility of shortcomings in the way in which medical treatment is given. In the event of a serious complaint by a prisoner or his family about

medical treatment, will the Minister undertake to hold a public inquiry immediately after the complaint has been made?
In the past few months there has been a welcome move towards making the prison service more accountable. Many people with interests in the prison service welcome that move. If someone is given medical treatment which is held to be unsatisfactory later, and a complaint is registered, the Home Office should make the complaint public and the outcome of the Home Office's findings more readily available. Such matters are important to those who have raised the future of Winson Green prison with me.
I am aware that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I ask the Home Secretary to undertake an early reappraisal of the whole of the building programme for the prison service. He should take account of the view expressed by many right hon. and hon. Members that the programme is insufficient in terms of its demand and that the envisaged time scale for the programme is far too long. It must be telescoped to be more meaningful and to cope with the demand by prison service workers of all grades to improve our prisons.

Mr. Charles Irving: Since the first day that the Home Secretary took office he has done more than any Home Secretary in recent years to draw public attention to the crisis of overcrowding in our prisons. From the beginning he has drawn the attention of the courts, the judges, the press and everyone involved in the penal system to the great effort needed to put right the damage done in the last 20 or 30 years. Little improvement has been made to most of our prisons in that time.
Over one third of the prison population have to spend at least 23 hours a day living three or four in cells built for one. Cells in our prisons do not have integral sanitation and the sordid result is the clearing up in the prison yard every morning of parcels of excrement thrown out of the window in the night, and the lining up of prisoners every morning for the degrading process of slopping out.
Children in our schools are taught to look back in horror at the prison conditions of John Howard's time. Future generations will ask how those living in the 1980s could have called themselves civilised when, for all our technical advancement, they subjected so many human beings to such appalling treatment and had the temerity to refer to it as part of a system of "justice".
I have been constantly critical of Governments of both political persuasions for their failure to tackle the problems of our prisons. The criticisms that we are now hearing from the Opposition Front Bench ring very hollow when we recall the abysmal record of the previous Labour Government on these issues. I remember that in 1975 Mr. Roy Jenkins, now a leading contender for the leadership of the SDP but then a Labour Home Secretary, announced that if the prison population reached 42,000 conditions would be intolerable and drastic action to relieve the position would be inevitable. The following year the prison population totalled 42,000 for the first time, yet, during the remainder of the Labour Government's term of office, the inevitable drastic action was notable by its absence.
No reasonable person can doubt the Home Secretary's deep and genuine concern about the problems of overcrowding, which affect not only the men who are


subjected to sentences, but each and every person who has to work in the prison system. Let us not forget those men and women in the prison service and those who make a great contribution through the probation and after-care service. We need a less posturing recrimination from those who did nothing when they had the chance in Government, and more constructive support for the Home Secretary in the form of practical suggestions that will help him to achieve his aim of reducing the prison population without endangering the public.
I give some examples that might help towards that aim, and I emphasise that most of my thinking is geared towards the non-violent offender. First, the Home Secretary could look again at the recommendation that was made in 1970 by the advisory council on the penal system that a new sentence of weekend imprisonment be introduced. That could be imposed as an alternative to full-time imprisonment when the court considers that a non-custodial penalty is not right. Weekend imprisonment operates successfully in West Germany, Holland, Belgium and New Zealand and avoids such undesirable side-effects of custody as loss of job, total disruption of family life and the continuous exposure to the contaminated effects of a closed prison life.
We have seen that army camps can be brought into use as temporary prisons with remarkable speed in an emergency. Why cannot such camps be brought into use with equal speed, even if on an experimental basis, as they are already being used, as weekend prisons? Instead, I understand that some of the camps are being closed and will no doubt go into disrepair. The cost of servicing that sort of system should not be astronomical. An offender who would serve a weekend sentence is most unlikely to be the sort of offender who will either wish to escape or be violent.

Mr. John Wheeler: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Irving: No, I am sorry; I never give way.
Secondly, the Home Secretary should remove the penalty of imprisonment for many minor offences, some of which could be decriminalised with no adverse effects for public safety. For example, there is a growing body of opinion in Parliament that regards the practice of imprisonment for soliciting as throughly objectionable. Organisations as disparate as the Prison and Borstal Governors' Society and the Police Federation agree that the practice is both harsh and pointless.
There is also weighty all-party support for making the offences of sleeping rough and begging non-imprisonable, in the form of the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on vagrancy earlier this year. I was disappointed that the report did not go further and recommend the total repeal of the Dickensian laws that punish men and women and label them as criminals for being homeless and disadvantaged. I hope that as a minimum the Home Secretary will implement the Committee's recommendation that they should at least become non-imprisonable offences.
Thirdly, the Home Secretary should take steps to reduce the number of people imprisoned for failure to pay fines, of whom there were nearly 16,000 in 1980. Fine defaulters now constitute a quarter of all receptions into prison of sentenced inmates and they make disproportionate demands on the time and resources of the staff.
In July, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, of which I have the honour to be vice-chairman, published the report of a working party under the distinguished chairmanship of Lady Howe. It made a series of excellent recommendations designed to reduce the use of imprisonment for fine defaulters. I commend it to all concerned, as there are 34 sensible, considered recommendations that would act as alternatives to imprisonment.
Many of those alternative methods of enforcing fines are rarely used by the courts. The report recommends that, before committing a defaulter to prison, the courts should have to certify that all other options have been considered and are inappropriate, giving reasons for that view. I hope that the Home Secretary will implement that reasonable and sensible proposal.
Fourthly, immediate steps should be taken to remove mentally disturbed offenders from prisons to either psychiatric or secure hospitals. It is a national scandal that the practice of imprisoning them is increasing because suitable hospital space, although available, is refused to the offenders.
The Home Secretary should also encourage the greater use of existing alternatives to imprisonment. The steady increase in the use of community service orders since they were introduced by the Conservative Government in 1972 is the only significant success story in sentencing policy during the last 10 years. Even now, however, only 4 per cent. of adults convicted of indictable offences receive a community service order. There is scope for even greater use of such orders.
Even fewer offenders are sent to senior detention centres, even though they provide a straightforward, easily understood penalty without the undesirable side effects if imprisonment. They are cheap to set up and run because they use existing premises and are manned by volunteer police or prison officers in their spare time.
Although the Home Secretary has taken steps to extend the number of senior attendance centres—unlike his predecessors in office—courts in most parts of the country still have no centre available to them for young adult offenders. A crash programme should be instituted to establish senior attendance centres throughout the country. I believe that a determined programme of measures along those lines would receive widespread support from those in and out of Parliament who are concerned and distressed about the appalling and deteriorating conditions within our prisons.
Let us, if our humanity fails us—I pray that it will not—not forget the cost. About £70,000 to £80,000 is the capital cost per new prison cell and £7,000 to £10,000 is the annual revenue cost. Let us compare that with some of the alternatives that are provided through a number of housing associations, including Stonham housing association. An alternative for the minor offender, the alcoholic or the drug addict costs a housing association £7,000 in capital costs and £3,000 a year in revenue costs. Surely that must be an avenue into which it would better to pour some of the millions that will go into the new prison building programme.
I am certain that not everyone will agree with me, but in my view no new prison cells should be used until one old cell is demolished. By that method less expensive and non-custodial methods will have to be adopted.
One cannot but conclude with a certain amount of praise and anxiety for the heavy responsibilities that rest


upon the shoulders of the Home Secretary and his colleagues in the Home Office. I can only suggest that if ever he wished to change his job there is only one worse in the House of Commons and that is chairmanship of the Catering Sub-Committee.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) has long been a campaigner for penal reform. I endorse many of his suggestions, particularly his suggestions of weekend imprisonment, that soliciting, sleeping rough, begging and so on should no longer be imprisonable offences, that we should not send people to prison for such offences as fine defaulting, that we should not send the mentally disturbed to prison and that we should go out of our way to develop more alternatives to prison.
I know that the Home Secretary has also been committed over at least the last two and half years to achieving shorter sentences and to reducing the size of the prison population. Therefore, regret must be felt on both sides of the House at the reception that he received during the Conservative Party conference in Blackpool. This is not a party political point. I am sure that many of us in the House felt sad that he was subjected to such criticism.
However, having praised the Home Secretary, I shall now proceed to make one or two criticisms of his points. No one will say that we should not have a prison building programme and that we should not improve, modernise and replace our decaying prisons. However, I wonder whether the Home Secretary has his priorities right in the interests of the prison system and the prisoners.
I draw the attention of the House to the recent report of the Home Affairs Committee. It says in the first conclusion and recommendation:
Priority within the prison building and maintenance programme should be given to substantial redevelopment and refurbishing of the existing local prisons, including the provision of integral sanitation".
Some of the six new prison developments mentioned by the Home Secretary would hardly come into that category. I am concerned that some of the things that we urgently need, for example to replace Brixton as a remand prison in London—I know that the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) has long been saying this—will be delayed for too long in the interests of other developments which are not of similar urgency.
Before the evening is out I hope to have a clear commitment from the Minister that not a single additional prison place will be provided through the prison building programme, but that any new prison place will represent the replacement of a place in a decaying prison, which will be done away with. Otherwise, experience is such that we must be fearful that those extra places, if they are provided, will be filled up because they are available. Thereby the aim of reducing the prison population will be frustrated.
There are other priorities in the prison building and development programme. It is regrettable that, when we have the plans for a new wing of Wormwood Scrubs, it does not have integral sanitation. That subject was raised in an Adjournment debate initiated a few days ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley). In reply to that debate the Minister said that plans

were too far advanced to make a change and provide integral sanitation. That is a disappointing decision. It is sad that even now, when the blueprints are available, we are not providing the integral sanitation that is widely regarded as essential, and that we are not constructing more prison buildings with integral sanitation.
A little while ago I went to Wandsworth prison in my constituency. It was impressed upon me how desperately short and inadequate were the facilities to enable prisoners to have baths. It was an enormous burden on the prison officers to try to enable the 1,400 prisoners to have at least one bath a week. That was because the facilities are inadequate. It has imposed enormous pressures both on the staff and the prisoners. There should be a high priority to correct that state of affairs.
The Home Secretary referred to partially suspended sentences. He seemed to suggest that, although the decision to go for partially suspended sentences was his, he had listened to the advice of the judiciary. In the recent past, the Home Secretary has been badly let down by the judiciary in his attempts to get shorter sentences. The Minister shakes his head, but I remind him that during the prison officers' dispute the number of prisoners fell dramatically because no new prisoners could be taken into most of our prisons.
However, as soon as the prison officers' dispute was over, the numbers shot back up to their present high levels. That is clear evidence that as soon as the dispute was over the judiciary behaved precisely as many of us in the Opposition had claimed. Therefore, I urge the Home Secretary not to show too much faith in advice from those quarters and to balance it against advice from other quarters. Those people would say that his other proposals would be preferable to those on partially suspended sentences.
Over the last couple of years I have visited a large number of prisons and other penal establishments. Many visits are depressing, and one feels disappointed that we have such an inadequate prison system. One of my most disappointing experiences was in Wormwood Scrubs about a year and a half ago. I asked to see one of the overcrowded cells. There was a bunk bed with a man on each bunk and a single bed on the other side of the cell with another man lying on it. It was mid afternoon. I could barely squeeze between the bunks to walk along the length of the cell.
My colleague and I asked the prisoners, "Will you get any work today?" They replied: "No". We asked: "Did you have any work this morning?" They replied: "No". We asked: "Did you have any work earlier in the week?" They replied: "No". We asked: "Have you had any work at all since being in the prison?" They replied: "No". They had been there for three or four months of a five-year sentence. Those were three young men of about 25. That is a depressing sign of the failure of our system. Because of the inadequacies of the system we are obliged to force three young men to lie in their prison cells on bunks for 23 hours a day. They had been doing that for several months. God only knows for how much longer they would have to do that without having the chance to do some work in other parts of the prison. Nothing will make those three men more embittered, frustrated or difficult to persuade to become ordinary citizens on release than the circumstances that I have just described.
I balance those comments with an encouraging experience I had when I visited a borstal near Rochester.


It must have been the original borstal because the place was called Borstal. I met a young man who was just completing a City and Guilds course in painting and decorating. He was full of enthusiasm that when he would leave borstal he would get a better job with better pay. I am generous enough to say that he did not take up painting and decorating merely to gain access to other people's homes. He was genuinely excited at the prospect of a better future as a result of what he had learnt.
I put the one experience against the other because all is not depressing or a cause for pessimism, but the encouraging reaction resulting from my visit to that borstal is not as common as my depressing experience during my visit to Wormwood Scrubs. I have no doubt that that experience would be repeated if I were to visit other prisons.
When one speaks about prison, one tends to get letters from constituents and others suggesting that because one is concerned about prisoners one is being soft and condoning their offences. Most emphatically, that is not the case. It is not my motive, or that of any other hon. Member, to condone most of the offences that send people to prison. We are merely saying that in respect of nonviolent offenders and people sent to prison for relatively short sentences we should think again about the best means of getting them out.
Other hon. Members have said that the United Kingdom has the highest prison population in Western Europe. I am concerned that over the years the media have heightened expectations of what an adequate prison sentence should be. The media have tended to suggest that what would have been a perfectly fair and proper sentence for a particular offence years ago is now no longer adequate, and by means of a horrific auction they are building up public demand for longer sentences. That is the very thing that we must resist and argue against.
I am disappointed that the Home Secretary does not intend to proceed with the proposals contained in his review of parole in England and Wales, which was published last May. The case he put for departing from those proposals lacks conviction. The review said of the alternative which the right hon. Gentleman will now adopt:
there can be no certainty that implementing section 47 would achieve any reduction in numbers in custody and would not confer any advantage in the treatement of individual offenders.
I am puzzled as to why the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Office have changed their minds.
I admit that in answer to parliamentary questions I have been told that on the most favourable assumptions the effect of introducing partly suspended sentences would be to reduce the prison population by up to 4,000. Further parliamentary questions elicited the fact that other unfavourable assumptions would reduce that figure, and might well increase the number of people in prison in all but the short term.
The Home Office has been coy about putting figures to the most unfavourable assumptions. I doubt whether the House will be convinced by the arguments this afternoon in support of the Home Secretary changing from his original proposals to the ones tht he now intends to introduce. I am puzzled by his change of mind, and I hope that he will think again before introducing the necessary measures to bring those proposals into force.
There is widespread concern about the prison medical service. I shall not go into full details about the way in

which the service operates and the dissatisfaction there is about it. Many people have suggested that the service should be fully integrated into the NHS. It is doubtfulwhether many of the anxieties about the operation of the service will be allayed unless the Home Secretary comes forward with some such proposal. There have been too many disturbing incidents in relation to the treatment of prisoners, and too many occasions when the Home Office and the DHSS have been shamefaced about what has happened to prisoners for anyone to say that the operation of the prison medical service is satisfactory and that we should leave things as they are. I very much hope that the Home Secretary will shortly come to the House with proposals to change the basis of how the prison medical service operates.
A few days ago, we discussed the Scarman report on the riots in Brixton. There is perhaps one lesson we could learn from that report and apply it to prison officers—what it said about racial prejudice in the police force. I am not for a moment suggesting that more than a minority of prison officers are racially prejudiced, but in some prisons a significant minority of prisoners are black and there is evidence that the relationship between them and the prison officers is not all that it should be. We have heard disturbing stories about some prison officers wearing National Front badges on their uniforms. I cannot give the Home Secretary conclusive evidence of where that is taking place, but I am sure that he is just as aware of these stories as I am.
I urge the Home Office to consider applying the Scarman recommendation on the selection and training of the police to the recruitment and training of prison officers. That would benefit relationships between black prisoners and the people who look after them.
Two motives underline our belief that the prison system should be altered, that fewer people should be in prison and that prison conditions should be made more tolerable. The first argument is simply one of humanity. When we sentence people to a loss of liberty, a civilised society should not at the same time say that they should be subjected to misery and degradation. Loss of liberty is punishment enough. That is not being soft with prisoners; it is simply behaving as a civilised society should.
Secondly, we should bear in mind the self-interest of society. Virtually every prisoner about whom we are talking will one day be discharged to take his place in society. If we subject them to some of the conditions under which they must now survive, we shall make it more difficult for them to take their rightful place as decent citizens. It is in the interests of society, as well as of protecting us from further crime, that we should ensure that when prisoners are released they have the best chance of taking their rightful place as law-abiding citizens.

Mr. John Wheeler: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs). I congratulate him on his speech. I share many of his convictions, and he presented his case in a balanced and constructive way.
I should like to comment on some of the points the hon. Gentleman raised, but first I want to refer to the interesting proposal, by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), of weekend imprisonment. That seems an attractive proposition at first sight. It seems as if such a


proposal would prove effective, but the question that I have asked in the past has not yet been answered: how would it work in practice?
If an inner London court sentences a man to serve a number of days imprisonment during weekends in an open prison, the nearest being Ford prison, how will that person reach that prison every weekend? If he has funds, will he be required to expend his own money to get there? If he does not have funds, will he travel at the taxpayers' expense?
Secondly, how will the prison staff react to such a proposal? Weekend work in prison is always difficult. Will extra prison officers have to be made available to man the prisons where these people are to go, including remote areas such as Ford in Sussex? Where will they live? What will be the nature of the accommodation requirements? What would be the economic advantages or disadvantages of such a proposal? These questions must be considered seriously.
I have always maintained that there is nothing to be gained from a proposal which a first sight seems attractive. If a person can be dealt with in a non-custodial fashion, that is the proper course to follow. We should avoid the tiresome business of locking people up when there is no need for it.
It is undeniable that on both sides of the House there is deep and real concern about the state of the prisons. During the recent inquiry of the Select Committee on Home Affairs a prison official said to the Committee that he believed that part of the prison estate was held up by the paint. He was exaggerating, but he struck a real chord.
It is true that the prison estate is in a deplorable condition. The consequences of this for those who have to serve sentences of imprisonment and for those who have to work in our prisons are disgusting. The House has said so on many occasions. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said—and, if I may say so, said very well—all this has been said before over years and over many decades.
When I first had something to do with the prison service in 1967, the prison governors were saying that there was a state of crisis. They warned that there would be riots and disorder and that the service would not be able to cope. Hon. Members and those outside the House who took an interest in the state of the prisons said that that was the true position. On and on it has gone for years. The saddest feature of the story is that successive Governments have failed to take action to deal with the problem because it is unpopular to build new prisons. There are no votes from the electorate in building new prisons.
I do not want to introduce a party political note but it has to be said that the previous Labour Government cancelled the prison building programme and thereby gave my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary an abominable inheritance which has become so bad in recent years and which he has had the honesty to seek to tackle in a way which I support.
About 17,000 prisoners are accommodated two or three to a cell. Those cells were designed in Victorian days for one person each. Many of the cells were constructed with proper latrine facilities that have been withdrawn in recent years. That has been done partly to meet the problem of overcrowding and partly to make it possible for more prisoners to be accommodated in these tiny rooms. It was

said with considerable justification by the 1977–78 Expenditure Committee that in many of the Victorian prisons the conditions were much worse than when they were built.
The appalling sanitary conditions are totally inhumane, the process of slopping out, which means spending all night in a cell with not only one's own but other people's excreta, is disgusting, but there are still those who suggest that the conditions in our prisons are not bad enough. These conditions are to be found in prisons such as Wandsworth, Brixton, Wormwood Scrubs and Pentonville. Unfortunately, the list is endless.
One inmate has said that the stench in the early part of the morning was such that many prisoners vomited and that those who went into prison for the first time found the experience disgraceful. This has gone on for many years. It is a matter of shame that the House has not spoken out in the past with sufficient conviction to justify the changes that some of us are seeking.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs reported this year and made a number of proposals. It suggested that a programme to refurbish and raise standards in existing prisons, together with the rebuilding of new prisons, was essential. That was the first recommendation in the report. It recommended a genuine attempt in the large and old-fashioned prisons to restore some dignity and to install necessary facilities.
The Select Committee's third recommmendation was
a rapid development of shelters for drunken persons, together with an adequate level of staff and the availability of skilled medical assessment.
It is true that very few prisoners will be removed from the prison system because of that recommendation. However, it would be an advantage if there were a gain of only a few hundred. Surely it is right that there should be such alternatives for those who are ill rather than wicked.
The Select Commitee's fourth recommendation was that
legislation should be introduced to require the provision of National Health Service places for any mentally disordered offenders on whom the courts make hospital orders.
It is regrettable that elsewhere in the Government my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not received the necessary support to enable him to deal with mentally disordered offenders. I hope that there will be a real attempt to do something about that category of prisoner who should not be within the prison system. Prison officers are not trained to deal with the seriously disturbed. They are put in a position of confrontation with such persons which is wholly unacceptable.
It is essential to build new prisons. Governments between 1918 and 1958 did not build any. For 40 years there was an absence of any attempt to provide the accommodation that is now necessary. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having the courage to start a programme of prison building which should produce 5,000 places in the 1980s and which will cost the taxpayer slightly more than £30 million in the next five years.
I was glad, too, to learn from my right hon. Friend today of the additional expenditure and resources that he will have at his disposal. However, the new places will do no more than replace units that are in such a bad state of repair and so inhumane that they have to be taken out of commission. The Governent's programme is at least making up a little for the failure of the recent past.
I hope that new prisons will be located in or near large conurbations. The proposed prison at Woolwich is


essential. One third of all crime is committed within the Metropolitan Police district. Consequently, about one third of the prison population emerges from within the London conurbation. Therefore, it is desirable to provide the prison resources close to where the prisoner lives.
The Home Affairs Select Committee made an important recommendation in that connection. Recommendation No. 9 said:
There must be greater co-ordination between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office with regard to the location of new courts. Every effort should be made to obtain or, as in the case of Holloway, to redevelop prison sites in urban areas, whose advantages include easy access to prisoners by families, friends, probation officers and legal advisers, as well as a decrease in the social isolation of prison staff.
It is for that reason that I urge the Home Department to press on with the building of the Woolwich prison as soon as possible. That is essential if we are to make an impact in London.
I recognise that some offenders obviously have to go to prison for a long time—for example, the man who commits a bank robbery, carries a firearm and shoots it at a police officer or a member of the public. Such people must go to prison for a long period in the interests of protecting the public. For the majority of offenders—non-violent offenders—the shorter prison sentence is more likely to be effective in a penological sense as well as having an economic advantage.
During the past few years research has confirmed the experience of those who are familiar with the criminal justice system, that the impact of imprisonment falls during the first few days or weeks of a sentence. Thereafter the public is paying out money for no good cause. Long sentences simply do not succeed in deterring crime or the individual. They simply entail locking a man away for no real advantage.
I wholly commend and support the Home Secretary in his determination to persuade the judiciary, in the higher courts and in the magistrates courts, to look with favour on shorter sentences. The message is getting across and the arguments to sustain shorter sentences are now being understood. That is the way to deal with the prison overcrowding. It is the only honest way that we can go. I am glad that the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor have also unhesitatingly supported the proposal. It is the right way to proceed.
I am sorry that we cannot proceed with the proposal to amend the parole system and to apply it to sentences of between six months and three years, in the manner suggested in the Home Office review which the House had before it earlier this year. The Home Secretary said in his foreword to that Home Office document that he believed that it would be helpful to the House and the public to have the document available as a basis for informed discussions. Those discussions took place, and as a result the Home Secretary concluded that it would be better to take a different route to achieve the same objective. I congratulate him on having the wisdom to produce the document, to listen to what many concerned with the criminal justice system had to say, and then to heed their advice. One could not ask for a better response.
While I do not think that suspended sentences have been at all successful and agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn that on the whole—certainly in the early days—they might have contributed to increasing the prison population, I believe that there is a considerable difference between a suspended

sentence and the provision of section 47 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. I therefore support the proposal to activate section 47 of the 1977 Act, and I am glad to learn that the House will be given an opportuity to expand that provision, one hopes during the passage of the forthcoming Criminal Justice Bill.
I support the 1977 proposal because it would retain the power within the courts to suspend the operation of a prison sentence. The great virtue of that proposal is that courts would be able to decide for themselves the appropriate sentence, and we would be conforming to the accepted theory that a shorter sentence—if someone must be sent to prison—is best.
There is much to commend the proposal because it will also provide for an element of supervision after release. The prison service will be able to prepare a prisoner for his release, and that must be an advantage. There is a considerable difference between the section 47 proposal and the straightforward suspended sentence, when a court simply says that a sentence is suspended and there is little examination of the prisoner or his needs in advance of the decision.
Much time has been spent in the House debating the number of people in prison. It is true that a third of them are there for the abominable crime of burglary. The public view burglary with great distaste, for the straightforward reason that it involves invasion of a person's home and harm and damage to the lives of average householders. The courts rightly believe a sentence of imprisonment to be appropriate.
We have failed in Britain for many years to consider more seriously a proper programme for controlling crime through crime prevention. I pay tribute here to the British Insurance Association, which yesterday launched a crime prevention campaign specifically aimed at deterring the burglar and preventing such crimes occurring. I am glad that the Home Secretary found time to give support to that campaign. I know that the Home Department is about to spend approximately £1 million, or certainly a substantial sum, on encouraging the concept of crime prevention. We must grasp the nettle if we really intend to reduce the number of people going to prison and do something about the crimes that oblige the courts to send them there in the first place.
In the big cities, why do local authorities and the owners of mansion blocks do so little to prevent crime? Why are there not telephone answering machines installed at the entrances of all blocks of flats? That is essential. Large blocks of flats should have a 24-hour porterage or caretaker service, and closed circuit television should be provided to monitor corridors and entrances. The police service should be pressing managements or councils to provide that facility. To control burglary, the police should be more systematically involved in an analysis to prevent the crime.
No new buildings—especially houses or flats—should be erected without first involving the police in a review of the design, environmental features, and the nature of the materials to be used. For example, recommending toughened glass would help to defeat not only the burglar but the would-be vandal. Strengthening door frames and doors, and providing good quality mortice window locks and metal grills are all aspects of prevention which should be included in a new building from the beginning.
The job of the police should be to advise that those things are done. A modified use of the police service


would contribute much to the control of crime and thus lead to a reduction in the prison population. I hope that that strategy will be given increased incouragement, because the problem is how to stop crime occurring in the first place. If we can achieve that, many of the problems that we are discussing today will begin to diminish. That should be an essential part of our strategy.

Mr. Edward Lyons: We have heard much today about the state of Britain's prisons, and there has been no exaggeration. In fact, a number of prisons are exceedingly close to breakdown. In Leeds prison, for example, the number of prisoners is about double that for which there is accommodation available.
Since the living conditions in prisons are the working conditions of prison officers, it is not surprising that prison officers are also feeling great strain. We must do something to reduce the pressure on prisons. I have a theory that most penal reforms of the past decade have occurred not because of the persuasion of penal reformers but because of the sheer desperation in the Home Office about where to put people sentenced by the courts. Therefore, it appears to favour the arguments advanced to justify some change in the system to reduce the pressure on prison space.
The position has become worse, and we are now casting round for further ways in which to reduce the prison population. There are many good arguments, other than pressure on prison space, for reducing the prison population, but one feels that Home Secretaries nowadays are more enlightened than they used to be because their officials advise them that they do not know where to turn to find accommodation for the increasing numbers of people sent to prison.
How can we improve the situation? One proposal that has been put forward by the Home Secretary today would, in my view, increase, not reduce, the prison population. That is the proposal for partly actual and partly suspended sentences.
The House may be interested to know how that proposal found its way on to the statute book. At the time of the Criminal Law Bill Committee in 1977, of which I was a member, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) was a Minister of State at the Home Office. The Criminal Law Bill contained no provision whatever for partially suspended sentences. One day the present Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew), who was a member of the Committee, produced a new clause embodying partially suspended and partially actual sentences. That proposal came out of the blue. It was not in the Bill. To my surprise—which I expressed at the time—the then Minister of State said that he would favourably consider the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I spoke against the proposal then and I have spoken against it since. It was obvious to me—I say this with the greatest of respect to those concerned—that the present Minister of State was a civil lawyer of considerable ability, but that he was less knowledgeable about the criminal courts. The then Minister of State, who is also an exceedingly able Member of the House, is a solicitor, but, in my view, he has a deficiency of knowledge about what

happens in criminal courts in relation to suspended sentences. The result was that the amendment proposed was accepted by the then Minister of State and accordingly, with some redrafting, it went through on Report.
In Committee, I said that the effect of the new provision would be that judges would impose the sentence that they thought was appropriate and then would say "To deter the guilty person from committing any further offence, I shall tack on to the end a suspended sentence." The result is that some people will come back to the courts—people who would otherwise not return—to receive a suspended sentence, and the effect will be to increase the prison population.
That proposal became law in 1977, but it was not brought into effect for four years. Why not? Why was that proposal, produced by the present Minister of State, not brought into effect for four years? Why did not his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), say that it would have the effect of increasing the prison population?
The Minister of State who took that view in 1979 has been replaced. The present Minister of State has gone in to bat with the proposal that he introduced into the Criminal Law Bill and has persuaded the Home Secretary, who is not a lawyer, of the value of his original proposal.
I believe that the proposal was included on the advice not of the judges, but of the Minister of State, who is pursuing an idea, to which he gave birth, in the teeth of my lonely opposition in Committee. When the hon. Member for Pontypridd, out of the blue, acceded to that clause, I looked at the Home Office officials sitting in the Committee Room and I rather suspect that they were absolutely horrified.
Of course, the Minister of State disappeared, but the officials remained. I assumed that they would ensure that the proposal, though it had passed into law, was never brought into effect. Then the wheel of time brought the man who gave birth to the idea into the crucial post of Minister of State, Home Office. The Home Secretary, desperately wondering how he could show the British people that he was reducing the prison population without attracting much odium, found by his side the man who gave birth to the idea, and he told the Home Secretary, as he told the Committee in 1977, that it was a very good idea.

Mr. Whitelaw: Before that fantasy continues much further, I wish to make the position clear. The hon. and learned Gentleman has become an indulger in fantasies because he is now in places where people indulge in fantasies: The truth is that judges and magistrates, in today's climate, with the shorter sentence initiative, believe that the proposal would reinforce that initiative. The hon. and learned Gentleman tells me that they did not say that. I must tell him that they said it to me. It is no use him telling me that they did not say it to me. I may not be a lawyer, but I can hear very well.

Mr. Lyons: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I remind him that the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science, and right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), has this afternoon expressed strong reservations about the proposal, as did the previous Minister of State, who was also a Queen's Counsel. However, I have no doubt that judges,


confronted with a proposal to halve the current period of imprisonment—which was the original proposal—would be happy to settle for something that gave them some kind of discretion. That proposal will have the reverse effect to that hoped for by the Home Secretary. For the sake of the prison system, I hope that I am wrong.
The other original proposal was that a person should serve one-third of the sentence imposed on him and should be granted not only one-third remission but one-third licence. That proposal has been scotched because the judges—we understand why—said that to impose a sentence of 12 months when only four months would be served would be unrealistic.
I invite the Home Secretary to consider a less drastic alternative put forward by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders in 1980. It is that we increase remission from one-third to one-half, which means an increase of one-sixth in current remission. Various conditions could be attached to the increase. I doubt whether the judges would react so strongly to that lesser increase.
The imperative that drives us is the terrible shortage of prison accommodation and the terrible conditions in the old prisons in which convicted persons have to survive. Because most of our current prisons were badly run in 1870, the then Conservative Government nationalised them in the hope that they would be run properly. Therefore, we are talking of prisons that are more than a century old. As the Home Secretary rightly said, successive Governments are responsible for inadequate building programmes. It is not a party matter, because we all have responsibility for the failure. The prisons were constructed before the modern ideas of penology. Prisoners are degraded by having to live two and three to a cell. I understand that at one time in 1980 almost 80,000 were sharing either two or three to a cell and were performing all their private functions before others. It is difficult to imagine how a person recovers his self-respect after such an experience.
I am not saying that all our sympathy must go to convicted persons. We must remember that there has been a large increase in crime. It is necessary to be tough with those convicted of crimes of violence. Our prime responsibility is to ensure that the ordinary citizen can live his life securely. However, we must seek to reduce the numbers entering prisons. There have been a number of suggestions about vagrants and alcoholics. The suggestions have been made before, but they still have considerable value.
There has been some reference to weekend sentences. I hope that the Government will reconsider that suggestion. Prisoners in the concluding stages of their sentences are often sent home at weekends to begin the process of rehabilitation. They could be replaced by people serving weekend sentences. That experiment might succeed. It should be given a trial period, although I understand that it may not be easy to achieve success. I believe that many persons would choose to work and maintain their families during the week and then enter prisons on weekends rather than to serve several weeks or months consecutively away from their families and work. The systems in Holland and Sweden show that there are methods other than ours for dealing with criminals and custodial sentences.
The question of remand is difficult. In the London area people have to wait a long time for trial. Two-thirds of all

women held on remand are not given custodial sentences. One knows that two-thirds of women held on remand will not be sent to prison. Yet they have to wait a considerable time before their trials. Similarly, one knows that more than half of the men held on remand will receive custodial sentences and that the period spent on remand will count as part of that sentence. Statistics prove that a much higher percentage of women than men do not receive custodial sentences. There is, therefore, a just argument that high priority should be given to bringing forward trials for women. The women suffer unnecessarily. There are few penal institutions for women, so their relatives have further to travel. It is also more difficult to visit them.
The issue of time spent on remand is tied to resources. If there were more courts, judges and staff, there could be a faster dispatch of trials for those on remand. We know that about half of those held on remand do not receive custodial sentences—some are acquitted and some are given non-custodial sentences. That is one area in which we could possibly reduce the prison population without building more prisons. We must accelerate the period between arrest and trial. Considerable progress has been made in the provinces, but London is still a black spot. Provincial judges are having to assist in London courts.
The attitude of judges is crucial to the question of shorter sentences. A number of judges have made it cear that it is not part of their job to consider whether accommodation is available for those sentenced by them. Doctors, when they make recommendations about patients, must have regard to the facilities available. It is no use saying that a patient must have treatment on a kidney machine if no machine is available. They must tailor their recommendations to the availability of facilities.
Lord Justice Waller, a highly distinguished member of the Court of Appeal, believes that it is proper to consider the state of the prisons. Furthermore, there is a difference in the quality of the sentence served in an open or modern prison, where there is one prisoner to a cell, and the quality of the sentence served in an old prison where there are three to a cell. Nine months in an open prison is a lesser punishment than nine months in a cell shared with others in an old prison. Many prisoners now go into shared cells in old prisons, so courts might well take that matter into account.
I do not believe that judges should divorce from their sentencing policy their knowledge that the Home Office is at its wits' end to find places to which to send prisoners. As judges approach sentencing, it is not wrong for them to consider, simply as one factor, that there is a dramatic shortage of places for convicted persons.
If we do not cut sentences at the lower end, we may ultimately force parole boards to recommend earlier release of criminals convicted of more serious crimes to create space for short-sentence prisoners. Everything interacts.
I hope that the judges will have some regard to what is happening in the prisons. I do not know how often they visit prisons to see the conditions. There is an argument that every year they ought to look at the places to which they send convicted persons.
We must continue the search for ways of keeping the prison population within limits, having regard to the places available, without enabling people to commit crimes with a feeling of impunity. The Home Secretary is seeking to achieve a reduction in the prison population, but he knows


that he must balance in the scales his duty to the community as a whole and his duty to provide in our prisons what is expected of a civilised society, so that both prisoners and prison officers are treated properly and humanely.
We have a long way to go. We desperately need resources. There has been neglect from all quarters in the past. The statistics are clear. In periods of unemployment, the prison population increases. The indications are that unemployment will increase. That means that we can expect further increases in the prison population unless other methods are applied to reduce that population. It is not popular outside the House to talk about reducing the prison population or cutting sentences. However, if proper prison places are not available, there is no alternative but to acknowledge that we shall have to apply our minds to seeing how we can alleviate the situation by adopting methods which are quicker than waiting for new buildings and resources.
There is not much with which to quarrel in the motion or the amendment. Both assert desirable propositions. I should not find serious difficulty in supporting both.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I am sorry to lean on those who have not yet been called to speak and who may feel aggrieved, but if the length of the last two speeches were repeated by other hon. Members only two more from each side of the House would be called. I therefore ask for some restraint.

Mrs. Renée Short: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In relation to the remarks that you have just made, may I ask whether it is in order for a former member of the Opposition, who has now changed his party and represents no one, to take 25 minutes addressing the House on this subject? During that period two hon. Members could have spoken. I think that Mr. Speaker should examine this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was in order. It is not out of order for hon. Members to speak at length.

Miss Janet Fookes: I begin by paying a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the very sincere interest that he has taken in this difficult subject. We all know that it is not a subject on which one is likely to receive bouquets from the grateful. If anything, it is only likely to make one unpopular.
I particularly welcome the new moneys that are to be allocated for new prisons and new projects at existing prisons. This is a most welcome development. At a time when every aspect of public expenditure is under scrutiny, I regard it as little less than a triumph for this money to be allocated for the prison service.
I am very mindful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of your strictures about keeping speeches short, so I shall say nothing tonight about the need to remove certain categories of prisoners from the prison system altogether. Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), have made the point most graphically, and I endorse what has been said. However, tonight I should like to deal with the question of shorter periods of imprisonment.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I enter one caveat. I do not suggest for one moment that short terms of imprisonment are suitable for violent offenders who are a real danger to the public, and anything that I say should be read in that context. But there is clearly no single action which could more effectively resolve the crisis in the prison system than a reduction in the length of sentences.
That point was made in the Expenditure Committee report in 1978, in which the Committee said that it regarded that as being a "major contribution" to dealing with the problem. I suspect that even if only one month were cut from each of the approximately 44,000 prisoners' sentences, it would make a marked difference to the overcrowding in our prisons.
I suggest, however, that a reduction in sentences has merit in its own right. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that longer sentences have precious little effect in deterring criminals from offending again, that the greatest impact comes from the first few weeks or months of the first prison sentence and that, after that, human beings adapt, as they always do, and the deterrent effect is then lost.
This point was made by one of the prisoners when the Expenditure Committee took evidence in prisons. One prisoner was most graphic in saying the the major impact that he felt was on first going into prison, and the shock was terrific, but he said that after some weeks the impact wore off and he gradually adapted to the regime.
The interim report on the length of prison sentences from the advisory council on the penal system said:
A steadily accumulating volume of research has shown that, if reconviction rates are used to measure the success or failure of sentencing policy, there is virtually nothing to choose between different lengths of custodial sentence, different types of institutional regime, and even between custodial and non-custodial treatment.
That sounds a bit bleak, and when one considers the cost of keeping someone in prison, that sort of statement is not encouraging. We might just as well keep them there a shorter time and hope that this will do the trick. Keeping them there for long periods will not improve the situation.
Hon. Members have suggested that the experience of other countries, notably Holland, should be borne in mind. I agree that there seems to be no appreciable increase in the crime rate in countries that impose much shorter sentences. I suppose it could always be argued that the experience of a continental country is too removed from our own to make a valid comparison. What cannot be brushed aside is experience in Scotland which, on the whole, has much shorter sentences but apparently no greater rate of crime—unless anyone suggests that Scotland exports all its rogues to England. I have been unable to obtain figures more up to date than those for 1974. It appears, however, that sentences of up to three months amounted to 14 per cent. in England and 63 per cent. in Scotland. Scotland relied heavily on a large number of short sentences apparently without ill effect.
Much discussion has centred on methods of imposing shorter sentences. There has been reference to the partially suspended sentence. I gave up trying to follow the convoluted argument of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) explaining why this was not a good idea. I can only hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not entrusted with the task of explaining his party's other policies because we shall never know what the Social Democratic Party stands for.

Mrs. Renée Short: It does not have any policies.

Miss Fookes: I believe that the partially suspended sentence is a useful device. I am delighted to know that it is to be introduced after four years of suspended animation. It came second in the recommendations of the Expenditure Committee report in 1978. The report also suggested that the lowering to three months of the minimum period of imprisonment at which a partial suspension can be made should be considered at an early date. I suppose that in parliamentary terms the period that has elapsed between 1978 and the end of 1981 is still an early date.
The partially suspended sentence has the merit of giving the person who is sentenced the feeling of what it is like to be in prison without staying there too long. Above all, the courts are given the discretion to decide whether such a sentence shall be used. I suspect strongly that the judiciary is more aware now than ever before of the need to keep sentences short. I expect therefore to see far greater understanding and co-operation. At the very least, it is worth while having a shot at implementing this proposal.
I should like my right hon. Friend to think again about the possibility of 50 per cent. remission of sentences. This should not be automatic but should be tied to a prisoner's conduct. For the same reason, I am much opposed to parole. When parole is given—or not given—it lies beyond the power of the prisoner to do anything about some of the factors taken into consideration while he is in prison. There is an inherent injustice in that system. I make no apology for saying that I would like to see its total abolition. While the prisoner is waiting for the response from the parole board there is a traumatic period that is not enhanced when he may be refused parole without reasons given. I believe that remission is far more sensible provided that it is not automatic and depends on how a prisoner conducts himself.
Discussion has also taken place on weekend prisons. To those sceptical of their value, I would suggest that a small pilot scheme be tried as proposed in the Expenditure Committee report. This is always a wise method of proceeding with something that is untried to see how it works in practice.
I doubt even now whether my right hon. Friend has fully grasped the nettle in the longer term. A major review is required of all imprisonable offences and the sentences attached to them. I believe that the advisory council on penal reform was right to say that the old, rather Victorian notion of acting for the worst possible offence and gearing the maximum sentence to that offence should be jettisoned. There is a need to re-examine all offences and to bring forward some ideas of what is thought reasonable but also to introduce a mechanism enabling courts to have total discretion to go beyond what was normal in a particularly unusual and appalling case. Until that is done we shall never tackle the nub of the problem. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give some words of encouragement on that matter.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: I believe that my hon. Friend was Chairman of the Select Committee in the last Parliament that was considering the question of women's prisons. I am sure that many hon. Members would appreciate my hon. Friend's comments on this important matter. Many hon. Member's are concerned about the appalling state of women's prisons and about the conditions that women have to suffer in them.

Miss Fookes: I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in order not to incur your wrath I had better keep my comments short. I was Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee that examined women's prisons, but the inquiry was unfortunately aborted by the general election. There is greater argument in many respects for bringing out of prison more women than men. Many of these women have great emotional and psychological problems that could be far better dealt with in a non-custodial atmosphere. There are many instances where women should not be in prison. The pressure on existing women's prisons would be eased. The fact remains that because the number of women in prison is still comparatively small, the prisons are scattered, which presents difficulties in maintaining contact with families. The Sub-Committee was toying with the idea of suggesting that women's wings might be attached to, but separate from, men's prisons, but that never came to any conclusion because of the ending of the inquiry.
I hope that encouragement will be given by the Government on the question of reviewing in depth imprisonable offences and seeing how sentencing policy can be radically altered.

Mr. Robert Litherland: I shall respond to your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and keep my speech as brief as possible. There is located in my constituency one of the most overcrowded prisons in the country. It has a governor and a staff engaged in the unenviable task of trying to make a deteriorating system work. The prison is called Strangeways. It has recently been the subject of a brilliant documentary series on television. I recommend the repeat showing as worthwhile viewing.
The governor, Mr. Norman Brown, has been outspoken over a long period in warning of the deterioration in the prison system. He described his prison on television as a human warehouse. In The Daily Telegraph, he has stated that conditions are an affront to a civilised society. His comments follow many years of trying to impress various Governments of the deplorable, degrading and deteriorating conditions in the prison service. Despite all the pleas and overtures, it is felt that the only reward will be yet another dialogue with the deaf or a call for more and more reports. Nothing has changed.
Strangeways prison was built in 1868 to accommodate 744 males and 315 females. It is now bursting at the seams. Yesterday, its prisoners numbered 1,766, with 555 men existing three to a cell, 23 hours a day. Can hon. Members imagine being locked up 23 hours a day, perhaps with prisoners with whom they have nothing in common and with whom they cannot converse? One prisoner in the cell may want to play his radio at all times of the day whilst another prisoner wishes to read. One of the other prisoners may smoke and have other disgusting habits.
Can hon. Members imagine sharing the overcrowding, the poor sanitation and the stench of the slop bucket? At night, the cell becomes the toilet and prisoners have to sleep in it. Hon. Members should try to imagine three men in a cell living in such conditions. Indeed, those conditions have been described as being worse than a stable. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) rightly said, at night excreta, wrapped in paper, is pushed through the bars to land in the prison yard, to be collected by a work party the next morning.
Is it any wonder that prisoners turn to hunger strikes, rioting, setting fire to their cells and suicide attempts? Governor Brown is correct to say that such conditions are an affront to civilised society. He should know, because he has to work in such a place. Without such men and the good will of the Prison Officers' Association, the system would collapse tomorrow. We should ask ourselves whether that is the way to run a so-called civilised and so-called Christian society.
Pressures on local prisons such as Strangeways are intense. Strangeways by its very nature is a transit prison and takes remand prisoners that have to be transferred to courts throughout Greater Manchester or to other prisons. It is now taking remand prisoners from Risley—a modern prison—that has been found to have latent defects and on which repair work must be done. Strangeways itself is becoming a remand prison. Such transfers take up a tremendous amount of time, because Strangeways has to provide the escorts. While manpower is used for such purposes, it cannot be used to supervise the workshops. Therefore, line after line of machinery—which could be put to useful purposes—lies idle, merely because prisoners cannot be supervised. The men have to rot in their cells.
Manpower is so scarce that after 4 pm on Fridays the prison is run by the prison officers doing extra duties. I repeat that, without their good will, the system would collapse. As has been said, the community in any society must be protected from crimes of violence. Such crimes must be condemned. Justice must be brought to bear and sympathy must be extended to the victims.
However, not all prisoners are murderers, rapists, or violent criminals as the press would have us believe. Many are in prison merely for petty offences, such as constantly breaking the street trading laws, fiddling electricity meters, or for being vagrants, beggars or prostitutes. If we are to prevent such prisoners from becoming isolated from the rest of the community we must find an alternative to sticking prisoners in cells for 23 hours a day. Such prisoners merely become victims of the system and will, more likely than not, return to prison again and again. The bulk of prisoners have committed petty, boring antisocial acts. Many are not a danger to the public. It is in that sphere that the initiative should be taken.
The governor of Strangeways agrees that many prisoners should not be there. Some prisoners require hospitalisation rather than imprisonment. Many are vagrants who require special attention. They are men who cannot even cope with the basics of keeping themselves clean. They have to be looked after by prison officers. Such prisoners perhaps require far more attention than hardened criminals, because they need intensive care.
The cuts in recruitment mean that there is a totally inadequate number of officers to carry out such duties. The pressures are becoming intolerable. That is why governors such as Mr. Brown of Manchester, and Mr. McCarthy of Wormwood Scrubs, have spoken openly of the overcrowding and squalor and of "human warehouses" and "dustbins". Those are the men—the professionals—who are expected to carry on regardless and who are never consulted or put on advisory committees to supervise the degradation that takes place behind high walls and hidden from the public, who have little or no knowledge of what life is like for the staff and prisoners inside those walls.
The first prison rule states:

The purpose of training and treatment of convicted prisoners shall be to encourage and assist them to lead a good and useful life.
What chance has Mr. Brown to fulfil such obligations in present conditions? The appeal is for action, not reports, promises or platitudes. The appeal is for a reduction in the prison population, which has escalated to over 44,000 with about 17,000 prisoners sharing cells.
How can an antiquated local prison such as Strangeways, which lacks facilities and manpower, continue to cope with an ever-increasing prison population, with conditions that deteriorate daily and with morale among prison officers at a new low? The situation is desperate. If it is to be contained, urgent methods and solutions are needed. Otherwise, the prison officers will have no recourse but to refuse to accept further inmates.
Overcrowding causes deep distress to the prison service, to the staff—as a result of increased stress—and to prisoners who are confined for 23 hours a day to cells that measure 12ft. by 6ft. The relationship of tolerance between the officers and prisoners is eroding and, if nothing is done, can lead only to a total breakdown.
I have been heartened by some of the comments that I have heard, even from Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Cheltenham. The hon. Gentleman recognises the need for urgency. I disagree with some of the Home Secretary's intentions. We want not words, reports or platitudes, but action. There is a crisis. Tonight, the gates of Strangeways have slammed shut against taking any more prisoners until the position is altered.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Before I was elected to the House of Commons, when I was a parliamentary candidate, I imagined myself addressing a packed House which hung on my every word. I imagined myself speaking persuasively and convincingly, perhaps—immodestly—even to change the course of history. Of course, when one gets here it is rather different. I am certainly not likely to change the course of history in a debate on Her Majesty's prisons.
Having sat through the entire debate today, I have learnt something, and that is that politicians, by and large, have little idea of what the person in the street wants. What is now happening is not happening because the person in the street wants firm action on law and order, long sentences and discipline in schools and in the country as a whole. This debate is taking place because the prison service is breaking down and because the conditions in which prisoners now live are absolutely disgusting. It is not because of the brilliance of my Government that this programme is being put forward, but because over the years politicians have neglected to provide for the building of prisons. Making such provision is not popular, and does not win votes. When people hear about prisons being built near them, they hold public inquiries to resist them. They will do anything to keep a prison away. At the same time, because we have neglected to build prisons over many years, today's politicians must sort out the job—as they say in Yorkshire. How can we do that?
We have heard an announcement of the most massive prison building programme this century. We cannot grumble about that. There have also been announcements and suggestions about short-term sentencing. That appals the general public and does politicians no good. The only


reason we suggest it is that the prison service has broken down. The politicians of successive Governments have failed to build prisons which would enable magistrates and judges to give sentences which are appropriate to the crime, and not just to fit a system that is falling down through lack of facilities.
We even hear talk this evening of releasing mentally disordered people. Yet those are the people who sexually assault children. Those are the people who rape women. We cannot generalise.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) casually mentioned street trading offences. He knows that that is absolute nonsense. Magistrates do not give custodial sentences for that sort of crime unless they have tried everything else in the past and have been through all the possible options that are available to the courts. A custodial sentence is given only as a last resort. So when a person is given a custodial sentence, a custodial sentence is appropriate. It is a shame that there has been so much talk tonight about various ways of shortening sentences and, indeed, of keeping people out of prison when, strictly speaking, that is exactly where they should be.
Why has our nation's character been destroyed? It is my view, and only my view, that after the Beveridge report at the time of the Attlee Government, and the birth of the Welfare State in 1947, that Welfare State gradually became almost uncontrollable. It became universal and not selective. People could get many different benefits. There was no great merit in providing for oneself. It became easier to lean on the State. That has all happened gradually.
I blame even municipal housing, with high-rise blocks and council houses. When people live in those circumstances, they lose their character and self respect. That is why the crime figures have risen over the years. People are not getting the right sort of leadership.
Our Government are doing the right thing. By making the Welfare State selective and not universal, by allowing people to have their own homes and to take pride in their possessions, we are doing more to help to keep down crime than all the institutional methods that we have debated this evening. We have talked about the dilution of powers and about persuading by discretion magistrates and judges to give a different form of sentence to help us out of the mess that the system is now in. We should be thinking along different lines, however.
This is a time when the country is experiencing violent crimes of terrorism. I remind the House of something that is highly relevant to this debate but which has not been mentioned so far. Let us consider the state of terrorism. A children's toy with a bomb in it was left near a children's nursery the other week. A bomb was put in a Wimpy bar that was used by young people. The same thing has happened in London stores where mothers and children shop. Before that it was railway stations and a hotel. The same people, just to give publicity to their cause, think that they should take the lives of distinguished people like Lord Mountbatten of Burma, and the former Member of this House, Airey Neave, whose plaque is over the door that leads to the Members' Lobby.
Neither should we forget the Reverend Robert Bradford who died a short while ago. The British Ambassador in Dublin, Ross McWhirter, and many of our soldiers, some of whom are about the age of my son, have also been killed. The lives of hundreds of British soldiers and

members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been lost and they are as important as the distinguished victims of terrorism. All these people were killed not abroad but in our country. That shows the state of the United Kingdom. Yet tonight, because our prison service has broken down and the Government and their predecessors have not done their job, we are having a debate about what we can do about the prison service.
I cannot blame the Home Secretary. I congratulate him, as all of us should, because at last he has produced a building programme greater than any programme this century. He has announced two further starts. That is important. The Home Secretary is introducing other reforms. If I had his job I should find it difficult to know what to do. My right hon. Friend has brought forward some very good ideas and they are the only solution.
Politicians must decide that we must never get into this mess again. Let us not have to persuade judges and magistrates to give shorter sentences and even non-custodial sentences when appropriate. If we succeed, the public will start respecting politicians more because hitherto we have lacked a distinguished record on prison reform.

Mrs. Renée Short: I shall not attempt to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens). When he has been in the House a little longer and looks at the annual reports from the prison department, he may find that even this building programme has been cut, as many building programmes in the past have been, because of the economic situation.
I apologise to the Home Secretary for not having been present to hear his speech. I wrote to Mr. Speaker to tell him that I was detained with a Select Committee from 4 o'clock and, regrettably, could not be here for the opening of the debate.
From time to time the House receives reports about the state of our prisons. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) made his contribution through the Select Committee. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) made hers as Chairman of an Expenditure Committee before the last election. About nine years before that I chaired an Estimates Committee in its previous incarnation as the Expenditure Committee when we examined the state of the prisons. Many of the recommendations that we made were the same as the recommendations of the hon. Lady's Committee. From what I heard, my hon. Friend's Committee's recommendations were also similar. Progress in the prison building programme and in the reform of the prison system is made very slowly,and the warehousing of prisoners continues.
All Governments are equally to blame. The Labour Government Home Secretaries have cut back on the prison building programme and resisted all our attempts to inject resources into the prison system. That has happened for various reasons. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West said, this is an unpopular cause on which to campaign. It does not win votes. But we should all be ashamed of the prison system.
In 1777, John Howard, whose name is probably well-known to hon. Members as a great penal reformer, said:
I wish to have so many small rooms or cabins that each criminal may sleep alone—solitude and silence are favourable to reflection, privacy and hours of thoughtfulness are necessary".


If that was true in 1777, when the prison population was considerably smaller than it is today because the country's population was so much smaller, how much more must it be true today? Over 200 years later we have not achieved the state which John Howard described as being essential for the reform of people who commit offences.
Many reforms in public life have been made in the last 30 years. We have expanded our health and social services. The nation's concern for the disadvantaged has led to better provision by Government Departments and voluntary organisations for the sick, the disabled, the elderly and unsupported mothers, but that concern has not reached prisons and their inmates. Some improvements have been made, but prison reform remains a difficult area.
I am surprised that successive Governments have not been prepared to deal with one of the major blocks in our prison system—the appalling overcrowding described by many hon. Members. The number of male prisoners who sleep three to a cell is growing. Conditions in men's prisons create many psychological and other problems with which prison medical staff and officers have to deal. The conditions brutalise both prisoners and staff.
The lack of constructive training in overcrowded men's prisons is a serious drawback to the ethos and reason for sending people to prison. The loss of liberty is the penalty. Prisoners are sent to prison not only for punishment, but to be reformed and to learn something useful that will help them when they are released. That has long since gone from the prison system in Britain. It is a serious matter which must concern us all.
The prison system is short of medical officers. The number of part-time and full-time prison medical officers increases only slowly. We rely upon the National Health Service to provide help. The increase in psychiatric disturbances in our prison system should be taken on board by the Home Secretary. He should examine whether the prison medical service can be improved.
The problems of overcrowding in our old prisons and of providing help and support to prisoners remain acute. I wish that the Home Secretary could be persuaded to examine some of the modern ideas which have been introduced into the prison systems in other parts of the world. Countries which we regard as backward often have more progressive systems than we have.
Why does the Home Secretary close his mind to the possibility of improving visiting conditions for families? Why do visits have to take place under the eye and ear of a prison officer? Why does he close his mind to the possibility of conjugal visits, especially for long-term prisoners? We are breaking up families. We are alienating husbands and wives; men and their partners. We are alienating children and parents by perpetuating the old prison system.
About 40 per cent. of long-term prisoners have a drink problem. Very little is being done to help them to get over their dependence on alcohol. What is the point of sending to prison those who are convicted of offences committed under the influence of drink? What is the point of sending drug addicts to prison? The pushers should be sent to prison. Those who are dependent on drugs need different treatment—medical and psychiatric treatment—not overcrowded prisons where such treatment is rarely available.
During this period of high inflation we need to spend more on building and on maintaining, let alone improving, the same level of service. The good buildings and equipment that we need are not available. The horrific problems of the present system are therefore compounded. There is no relief and no improvement. The prisons have to take all the men and women sent to them by the courts, however inadequate their facilities.
I agree that there are fewer women offenders than men. Women are more law-abiding than men. Mercifully we are not being pressed to build more women's prisons. Most of the offences that women commit are not crimes of violence. Generally they are petty crimes. Women should not be put in prison. They should be treated within the community, and the prisons now used for female offenders should be used for male offenders.
We need better facilities and more research into the causes of crime and into the background of delinquency and criminality. We need alternatives to custodial treatment. We need more socio-medical research. That would surely give some indication of how we can treat offenders. Long periods in prison damage the personality and create more problems for the future. They create social and family problems. Separation alienates the whole family—and I underline the effect that it has on children.
I hope that the building programme announced by the Home Secretary will go forward, because that is one of the major ways in which to alleviate the appalling conditions in our prisons.

Mrs. Shelia Faith: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and I join her and other hon. Members in expressing concern about the squalid and appalling conditions of Her Majesty's prisons. We all bear in mind the words of the governor of Wormwood Scrubs and the warnings of the Prison Officers Association. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has taken on board the strong feeling that alternative arrangements to prison should be made for mentally subnormal people, alcoholics and other petty offenders.
We must, however, face up to the fact that crime has been growing constantly over the last 30 years. Although we hope that the courts will always make prison the last resort, all hon. Members must agree that in many cases imprisonment is inevitable to protect the public, particularly when crimes of violence are committed against the police and others in vulnerable occupations. Often public opinion would be outraged if the sentences were not of some length. Polls have shown that most people are deeply concerned about law and order, and we should be wrong to overlook those understandable feelings. When people hear about attacks on people and property they overlook the disgusting and disgraceful conditions in our prisons.
I do not think that anyone would quarrel with the decision taken yesterday to sentence 15-year-old boys to a total of 33 years' detention because they tortured old people. However, all hon. Members are aware that there is a crisis in our prisons and that shorter average sentences are not only desirable but an urgent necessity if we are to reduce the dangers of overcrowding. The senior judiciary and the Magistrates Association are united in agreement


on that point. My right hon. Friend has also demonstrated his anxiety and has spoken today about the scale and urgency of the problem.
I congratulate the Government on finding the resources to begin such a large programme of prison building at a time of financial stringency. I welcome today's announcement. However, the programme will not solve the immediate problem. Judges and magistrates have demonstrated their understanding already and are giving shorter sentences. As the crime rate is growing, much of the effect of short sentences has been negated.
The Magistrates Association has responded by advocating shorter sentences. It has proposed a new day imprisonment scheme that would reduce overcrowding in prisons and enable men and women to maintain their employment. We all know that losing a job can be the most serious and long-lasting punishment of all. The day scheme should be examined closely with a view to possible early implementation alongside the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), who is proposing a weekend imprisonment scheme.
Many people would feel happier if they were given assurances that judges and magistrates visited prisons regularly. This issue was raised earlier in the debate by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons). There are many who would like to think that judges and magistrates are in regular contact with prison governors. As a magistrate, I am well aware that all magistrates must visit a prison as part of their initial training. I remember my visit to Durham prison. The memory stayed with me with great vividness for several years. I hope that all magistrates courts committees organise regular visits to penal establishments.
It is important that prisons should be open to the public and I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that in future they will be. I hope that magistrates will avail themselves of every opportunity given them to visit prisons as soon as they feel that the memory of their previous visit is receding. I hope that they will be encouraged to do so. It must be advantageous to have the maximum possible number of channels of communication between prisons and the courts. Magistrates who are members of boards of prison visitors should be asked to address meetings to give their colleagues first-hand reports of conditions. Prison governors should attend similar meetings of magistrates frequently so that magistrates are fully aware of their problems.
Several weeks before prisoners are released they attend rehabilitation courses by the probation service. Perhaps magistrates should go to prisons and participate in the courses so that they may have the opportunity of explaining the work of the courts. That would have a two-way beneficial effect, for as well as enlightening prisoners it would give magistrates a further opportunity to visit prisons to see for themselves the squalid conditions.
Opposition Members who are up in arms about the present situation should bear in mind that the previous Labour Government cut the programme of prison building at a time of rising crime. That is why we are faced with such a enormous problem.
I do not believe that Parliament should legislate to reduce maximum sentences. Such sentences are rarely used and they have a deterrent effect. We must remember that judges and magistrates must hold a proper balance. They must interpret and apply the law without fear or favour. They must take heed of public opinion and the

prevalence of certain crimes in their areas. As well as retribution, deterrence and protection of the public, the final decision on the sentence in each case must remain with the judiciary.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I wish to deal with only one point, the education of the judiciary, which accords well with the last point made by the hon. Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith). All the discussion of that vexed problem was contained in the report of the Home Affairs Committee that was published in July. It was not mentioned in the debate until my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) made his speech. There were two Front Bench spokesmen who apparently had never read it. What is the point of having Select Committees if we do not take cognisance of what they are saying? It is significant that we reported in July and that the Home Office has not yet responded to our report, although everyone knows that that is a fundamental issue for the Home Office. Unless we press hard, the House will not receive the full benefit of Select Committees.
The only way in which we shall reduce the prison population is by cutting the sentences. The only way in which we shall cut sentences is by teaching the judiciary, not that the prisons are so full that it should not send the people there, but that there is a beneficial value in having shorter sentencing and that that will not lead to an increase in the crime rate. That is a misunderstanding which was evident in the speech by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens).
In 1973 the position in Holland was similar to that in this country. A decision was taken by the public prosecutors who appear in all criminal cases in Holland to advocate to the judiciary that it should consider halving the sentences that had been given on previous occasions. Over the years the judiciary acceded to that. In Holland there has been no significant increase in the crime rate other than the increase which is common to Western Europe. No increase has been caused by shorter sentencing. That reinforces the evidence from research in this country that the length of sentence has little effect on the incidence of crime. It does not deter and it does nothing to reform the criminal.
All that we need to do about sentencing is to try to identify the appropriate custodial sentence for cases where a custodial sentence is the only proper sentence. That seems to be less than the average tariff set up by judges over the years.
One has only to read the letter written by Lord Justice Lawton in The Times last week to see what is wrong with the judiciary's opinion. It is right to say that the prisons are overcrowded, but that is only in the remand centres and local prisons. It is right to say that in those establishments most of the prisoners are serving sentences of between 18 months and four years. On the whole they are serving those sentences for house-breaking, theft and burglary. Lord Justice Lawton claims that most of those people have had several previous convictions. That is borne out by the statistics.
Lord Justice Lawton goes on to say that there is therefore a necessity for the courts to go on increasing the sentence that they give in each successive conviction, and that that must be about the same as the present tariff, to protect the public. However, that is a fundamental flaw that the Dutch experiment exposed and that the Scottish


experience also exposes. In this country we can also claim to expose the flaw by the experience following the prison officers' dispute.
During that dispute in a limited area there was a reduction in sentencing and no significant increase in the crime rate. In those circumstances the message that should go to the judiciary is not that the prison fabric is falling about us, that we do not have the space for any more prisoners, and that we do not have the money to build enough prisons quickly to cope with the prisoners, but that it is wrong to give prisoners sentences of the length that is being imposed today.
When we on the Select Committee carried out the study, we asked the Home Office to calculate the effect on the prison population of halving sentences of between 12 months and four years. The effect was dramatic. It reduced the prison population from 44,000 to about 35,000. In those circumstances the judiciary must accept that that is the proper way forward. How will it accept that? The general tool with which to bludgeon it is the suggestion of the advisory council on penal reform that the maximum should be reduced.
I remember what used to happen in cases of gross indecency. The judges were obliged to pass sentences of less than two years in cases of male gross indecency, because that was the maximum tariff. Increasingly, they came to the view that the maximum should be given in every case. They sometimes sent people convicted of four offences of gross indecency to prison for eight years. That attempt to reduce the tariff did not succeed.
Some hon. Members have criticised the Labour Government of 1974 to 1976. One of the reasons why I was not attracted to the advisory council's report was simply that merely to reduce the maxima would not necessarily reduce the tariff. The only way in which the tariff can be reduced is by teaching the judges that we do not need a tariff such as the one that Lord Justice Lawton has firmly fixed in his head after 46 years' experience in the courts.
I underwent training when I was appointed a deputy circuit judge. That meant that along with others I was invited to a conference in the Lord Chief Justice's court for one day—a Saturday—and we were given some test cases. Each group had to decide the appropriate sentences. Without exception, every sentence we suggested was more than doubled by the judge who gave us advice at the end. He came from the Court of Appeal. It was he who needed the education, not us. We were prepared to give a lighter sentence, and there was no justification for the kind of sentencing given by the judge. The Court of Appeal must change its policy. It needs educating.
When the Labour Government were in office, they set up a system under Lord Justice Bridge to educate the judiciary. There is now an institute for training the judiciary, although it is fair to say that it applies only to judges on appointment. I gather that the training involved lasts only two or three days. We need a period of six months so that the judiciary who have been trained in the courts as advocates, and have learnt the tariff there, can be taken to Holland and Sweden as well as around our prisons and shown that it is totally unnecessary. The only way in which that will be done is by insisting on it here

and now. The one thing that the Home Secretary, in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor, can do is to begin a sensible system of judicial education here and now.
We cannot continue simply to depend upon the strictures of the Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary has done all that he could. He has done a good deal more than most Home Secretaries to try to persuade the Lord Chief Justice. Indeed, the Lord Chief Justice has said that if the tariff were normally three years and 18 months, it would be appropriate to think in terms of about 18 months down to nine months. The effect of that in the first year has been to reduce the average Crown court sentence by only two months.
The Home Secretary takes great credit for that, but it is totally inadequate. We shall not meet the prison crisis by simply lopping a few weeks off the average sentence of 18 months to four years. There must be a significant cut, and the only way in which that will be done is to change the attitude of the judiciary. In that sense, the Home Secretary has some power. He can insist that judges should be trained for longer periods and that they should be brought into contact with the latest research upon the effects of sentencing.
I shall now resume my seat because the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) has been waiting nearly as long as I have to speak, but I hope that what I have said will be taken into account.

Mr. Keith Best: At this late stage, I shall not reiterate all the problems associated with our prisons because they have already been well articulated. I am grateful to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) for giving me this opportunity to say a few words.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made an unobjectionable speech. Indeed, I told him in an intervention that I agreed with much of what he said. Whatever else may be said about the right hon. Gentleman, he has done the House a service in bringing this matter to its attention.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will know that in 1975, when Mr. Roy Jenkins was the Home Secretary, he said that the breaking point of the prison population was 42,000. It has been said before but, unfortunately, the previous Labour Government did little to try to overcome the problems.
I wish to debunk one myth: that prison has a rehabilitative effect. That is generally and increasingly accepted as a myth. A prison governor says that he has the dustbin of society, and when we consider the harm caused to prisoners' families by long periods of incarceration, that separation disrupts the basic human relationship, and that identification with the criminal community also means a rejection of the standards of normal society, we should do everything in our power to ensure that we not only have fewer people in prison for shorter periods, but also that the dehumanising aspects of prison are ameliorated in the best possible way.
It will mean trying to educate the prison population, not just to acquire skills for a job that they might find when released, but towards a complete change of attitude to life. I do not have time to say much about it but there is an experiment in Oregon in the United States of America which seeks to enrich prisoners' horizons, to stretch their


minds and to teach them that they can learn to think for themselves. I commend the study of that scheme to the House.
I say nothing on the aspects raised by many hon. Members on each side of the House about the social inadequates now in prison, particularly the habitual drunken offenders. Hon. Members may have heard me speak on that aspect before and I hope that the Minister in reply will say something about the Leeds and Manchester experience. Many hon. Members consider that to be a bright light and an indicator in the direction of providing detoxification centres so that habitual drunken offenders need never find themselves in prison. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that sympathetic consideration will be given to an extension of that scheme.
In considering the financial—apart from the humanitarian—aspects of habitual drunken offenders, one recalls the May committee's report, which stated that the provision of a category B prison place costs about £40,000, whereas a converted hostel for an alcoholic costs merely £4,000. The figures show the advantage of going down that road. However, I stress that that is not the answer to the prison population crisis. It is generally accepted among hon. Members that the social inadequates and habitual drunken offenders represent only a small proportion of the total prison population.
There are two ways in which we can seek to reduce the current prison population. One is to seek further alternatives to prison sentences, which have already been mentioned. I commend to the consideration of the House community service which is a specific alternative to a custodial sentence, although that fact is not generally perceived by the general public. The other solution is the implementation of section 47 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, which I welcome and which I know my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will welcome, notwithstanding the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons). It would ensure that the evidence indicating that the periods of greatest impact on a prisoner are the first few days or weeks is carried into effect. In 1977 the advisory council published an interim report about the length of prison sentences which said:
We have come unanimously to the conclusion that a large number of sentences of imprisonment passed by the courts, especially in the short and medium term band of sentences, are longer than they need be in the interests either of society or of the offender.
Similar comments were made by the May committee. The Home Office research study, No. 35, about the effectiveness of sentencing, stated:
It can be concluded that there is no evidence that longer custodial sentences produce better results than shorter sentences.
The Justices Clerks Society, in its 1976 memorandum entitled "Sentencing Principles", also followed the same path, so there is a general acceptance that that is what we should be doing.
In 1966, 72·5 per cent. of sentences were for six months or less, and only 1·8 per cent. were for more than four years. Ten years later, in 1976, 57·5 per cent. of sentences were for six months or less, and 2·9 per cent. were for more than four years. There has, therefore, been a significant change.
I agree to a certain extent that a massive programme of education is necessary to convince not only the judiciary and the magistrates but the general public that shorter

sentences are the way to reduce the prison population. If the Government can convince the general public of that, they will have done a great service towards the civilisation of society.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: If I may take just a minute, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make four quick points.
First, I do not think—

Mr. Speaker: Order. When I looked at the Opposition Front Bench, there was no sign of movement. However, if the hon. and learned Member will be literally one minute, that will be helpful.

Mr. Lawrence: I shall be brief. First, no one who believes that the judges should have flexibility in deciding what is an appropriate sentence in an appropriate case can support the motion.
Secondly, since I do not believe in early release, amnesties or the decriminalisation of offences, I am logically forced to accept that we should not send people to prison who are now being sent to prison, and/or we should have shorter prison sentences. To that extent I agree with much that has been said.
Thirdly, if we are to be more successful with our improved and larger police forces in tracking down the villains, and if we are to improve the system of criminal trial so that it convicts more of the guilty, we shall logically need more, not fewer, prisons. I am therefore driven to the conclusion that in the longer term we must build many more prisons than my right hon. Friend has in mind.
Fourthly, for the even longer term, we should start looking at the possibility that we may be wrong in saying that prison should be the place of last resort. If we were able to face offenders at an earlier stage of their offending with the inside of a prison, for however short a period, they would be far more likely to be deterred from ever wanting to return to it than they are today. An offender today can offend many times before he ever sees the inside of a prison, by which time it is too late for him to be deterred from crime.
Finally, I strongly welcome what my right hon. Friend is doing for the prison service. I only wish that he were able to do more in regard to the future building of the prison system.

Mr. Peter Archer: I do not begrudge the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) his three minutes. I am not sure that I agree with everything that he said, but I am sure we all agree that his contribution was well worth the time allocated to it. [Laughter.] I did not say that it was not worth more. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows me well enough to know exactly what I meant.
When I read the Government's amendment to the motion I wondered what was in issue between us. If ever an amendment failed to make specific the way in which it differs from the motion, it is this one. When I listened to the Home Secretary I still did not believe that there was a wide gap between him and us—at least, as to the objectives of penal policy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not disagreeing with me.

Mr. Whitelaw: No.

Mr. Archer: The right hon. Gentleman's diagnosis might have been taken directly from the Labour Party's evidence to the May committee. And we were pleased when he announced that the Government were proposing to take some action, for clearly the time for debate is over. Those who are concerned with the prison service were becoming desperate. They wished to see something done. They wished to see a sign that their voices were getting through.
So we believe that this debate, initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), has achieved a purpose. I am pleased that that thought was at least endorsed by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best). If what the Secretary of State announced fell short of what we believe to be necessary, I suspect that the fault may not lie with the right hon. Gentleman. He may have been more forthcoming about resources if he could have carried the Treasury with him and perhaps more forthcoming about reducing the prison population if he did not have to carry the weight of prejudice in his party. I absolve from that those who have taken part in the debate this evening, but I do not believe that they claim to speak for the main body of their party.
The new prison building programme does not greatly impress us. I do not believe that we are all so unimpressed as my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), for clearly present conditions cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. We have some doubts about some of the specific proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) mentioned that the new wing of Wormwood Scrubs prison, as at present designed, does not provide for integral sanitation. And we share the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk that the proposals may only keep abreast of the increase. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South said, we would be happy if the proposals represented an improvement rather than an enlargement in accomodation.
The new prisons are not likely to house prisoners for about 10 years. Yet we could make a substantial difference to the atmosphere in some prisons with a fairly limited expenditure on some existing projects. Yesterday I saw a wing at one of our prisons reserved for rule 43 prisoners—those who must be kept apart from other prisoners either because they represent a danger to or fear violence from other prisoners. The problems faced by the staff in that wing were substantially greater than they needed to be, because they were working with no physical barrier between those prisoners and the others. Modest expenditure on a grille or a gate could make a great difference to their burden.
It has been said many times that the problems are not new. No one pretends that they crept up on us. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) mentioned some words of John Howard in 1777. I am indebted to Judge Stockdale's excellent book on Bedford prison for a quotation from a communication addressed by the justices of Bedford to the Government in 1783. They said:
The keepers of the jails and bridewell of this County, having complained to the court that the said prisons are very much crowded by felons convicted at the different Assizes still remaining there, and the said complaint upon enquiry appearing to be well founded, it is ordered by this court that the Right Honourable Frederick Lord North one of His Majesty's principle Secretaries of State, be acquainted with the said complaint, in hopes that some method may be thought of for removing of the said convicts, which if not done, by more prisoners being from

time to time committed to the said prisons … these will be rendered unhealthy and the consequences may be fatal not only to the persons confined in the said prisons, but also to the inhabitants of the Town of Bedford.
The Home Secretary at the time had an answer. He said that he would send the prisoners to the hulks and that in due course they would be dispatched to America or to Botany Bay. That is an option which is no longer open to the prison authorities.
But the Bedford justices pinpointed a problem which has been with us ever since. The reason for the desperation being felt within the prison service is that the prison authorities do not control the number of people committed to their custody. Local prisons learn at the end of each day how many people have been dispatched there by the courts when the prisoners arrive at reception. No one inquires whether there is room. The prisoners are there and the authorities must find room. The training prisons do not have that problem. If they have no room they say so, and people are not sent there.
Yesterday I was privileged to visit Wandsworth prison, which is a dispersal prison for a substantial part of Britain. One of its main functions is to accommodate new prisoners until they have been assessed. They are then dispatched to the training prisons, open prisons or whatever. Because of the lack of accommodation in those prisons, Wandsworth has to accommodate the prisoners for substantially longer than necessary. Yet it cannot hold back the tide at the other end because, when the prison van arrives from the courts, it has to accommodate the prisoners. In fairness, the prison staff are not complaining bitterly. They are remarkably philosophical about the problem. But there was some feeling that, because they were coping with the problem, no one cared.
For many years the prison service was not in the news and no one was troubled. We shall not satisfy those who are most concerned with the problem by recriminations about which party was less receptive in the past. They do not want to hear such a debate. Between 1931, when there was a riot at Dartmoor, and 1969, when there was an explosion of frustration at Parkhurst, the prisons gave virtually no trouble, and were ignored. The prison officers asked for better pay and conditions. In 1958 the Wynn-Parry committee recommended that there should be little improvement in pay and conditions. There was some attempt to deal with prisoners in a positive manner, but the Mountbatten inquiry was appointed specifically to deal with the problems of custody, and quite properly recommended that those problems should have priority. Any attempt to deal with prisoners in a positive manner was again submerged in the concern for security. And that was probably right. If there were not sufficient resources, something had to be sacrificed and it should not be security.
But the pressure began to build up. Prison conditions were becoming increasingly unacceptable and tensions were becoming worse. For the prison service, the outlook was becoming increasingly bleak. Of course, there were no easy answers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) sensibly appointed the May committee to inquire into the problem. That committee reported in October 1979. The Home Secretary has had two years to consider the recommendations.

Mr. Whitelaw: We have implemented much of the report.

Mr. Archer: But it is not unreasonable to ask him tonight, two years later, to respond to the recommendations about the crisis. The matter did not simply go to sleep. In October 1980 the Prison Officers Association instituted a work-to-rule. In July 1981, the Home Affairs Committee published a report. I tell my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) that the Opposition were not oblivious to what the Committee said. If he wishes, he can examine my copy of the report. It is pretty well thumbed. A number of suggestions put forward in the debate tonight originated from the report.
There was a succession of articles in the press. There was a television programme about Strangeways prison. The recriminations about which of us failed in the past have been submerged. Until today, those who actually had to contend with the difficulty were becoming increasingly desperate. They had seen no sign of their voice being heard. Happily, all those who have taken part in the debate can now reassure them that their views are taken seriously.
Again and again during the debate we have heard complaints about conditions in prisons. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) described conditions in Winson Green. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) described conditions in Manchester. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East spoke about visiting regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South expressed anxieties about the prison medical service.
One thing that has emerged from both sides of the House is that the test of a civilisation is how it treats its offenders. Judged by that test, this country falls short of civilised standards. It stands condemned on two counts. First, what we have done is inhumane. Of course, those serving prison sentences have not deserved well of the community. They cannot complain if they undergo punishment. But, as The Times pointed out in its leader on Tuesday, their punishment is deprivation of liberty. That was echoed eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South. We would not suggest that while they are suffering that deprivation they should be more comfortably housed and fed and have more amenities than the rest of the community, but it is no part of the calculation that, in addition to the deprivation of liberty, they should suffer degrading conditions and loss of all human dignity.
Of course, they are not the most attractive of people, but human rights are not about the most attractive of people. It is easy to be in favour of human rights for those who appeal to us. One can always get support for a press campaign in favour of a pretty girl, an appealing child or a charismatic hero. The test of our commitment to human rights is what we do about those who do not attract us, those whose company we would not normally seek. The test of a civilisation is how it treats its outcasts, wrongdoers and non-conformists. It is not suggested that they should be rewarded for their wrongdoing, but that they should not be deprived beyond what is a proper measure of punishment. That is what is meant by saying that they, too, have rights.
Secondly, as The Times leader pointed out, it is a shortsighted course. Of course, some people must be incarcerated for the protection of the community. Of course, it is sometimes necessary to impose a heavy penalty on wrongdoers in order to deter other wrongdoers. But the best way of protecting potential victims, if we can achieve that, is to reform the wrongdoer—to enlist him on

the side of the community. If we do not achieve that—and we shall not always achieve it—we have a problem, because, unless we hold the wrongdoer in a secure institution for the whole of his life, one day he will be released. No one will be better off if he is released degraded, embittered and brutalised, particularly if he has also employed the last few years learning from his fellow prisoners new techniques for crime, new contacts among the underworld, new ways of harassing the community. If our penal institutions are just academies of crime, we have the worst of all worlds.
Even in the best of conditions, our prisons are not likely to have a high success rate of reform. That has been said repeatedly in the debate, and we all recognise it. Many of those who go to them are people who cannot be accommodated smoothly within any community; they are aggressive, selfish and mean. An enclosed, artificial community, consisting by definition of a high proportion of anti-social characters, will have its problems.
Those whose lives are devoted to working with them are at risk in a number of ways. They are at risk, day in and day out, of physical violence. We would be lacking in humanity if in any equation we did not give credit for that. They are at risk of malicious complaints by people who will not shrink, sometimes, from telling lies. If a complaint is made, it is not always easy for them to refute it. Where they try to form a constructive relationship with prisoners, they are at risk from allegations of corruption. So it is understandable that they are constantly afraid that they and their difficulties are in danger of being overlooked, particularly where their pay and conditions of service do not reflect a high degree of recognition from the community. I do not believe that that is now their major complaint, but I think that the focus of what they really want is an assurance that someone cares.
We must keep in mind the need for justice for three groups: the community at large, the offenders, and those who spend their lives dealing with the offenders.
A great deal of this debate is about how we can reduce the prison population. I do not propose to rehearse all the arguments that we have heard this evening, but basically there are three groups of people whom we ought to have in mind. First, there are the unconvicted remand prisoners—those awaiting trial who have not been granted bail. They probably represent the heaviest burden on the prison staff. In terms of time and trouble, a prisoner is probably at his most demanding at times of admission, transfer and release, when he or she must be escorted to and from the court.
I recently visited Holloway prison, which, in addition to all the other purposes that it serves, is the remand prison for a very wide area. It is obvious that conveying prisoners to the courts—sometimes miles away—demands the attention of many prison officers each day, who could otherwise be doing more positive jobs. On a day when a large number of escorts were required, classes, therapy units and all the other activities that we have discussed so glibly had to be cancelled.
Some 50,000 people a year on remand pass through prisons. On one day, 30 June 1980, more than 4,500 people were on remand untried out of a total custodial population of just under 44,000. Of those, about 1,600 were subsequently found not guilty or received non-custodial sentences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk pointed out, such people often suffer the worst degradation because they are in the worst accommodation.
During the Committee stage of the Supreme Court Bill, I ventured to initiate a debate on the ways in which such people might be kept out of prison and on how their cases might be put more articulately to the judges in chambers who have to decide such cases. What we said on that occasion did not commend itself to the Government, but it is a matter to which we shall return. It may not make a vast impact on the numbers in custody, but it will make a substantial impact on the burden falling on prison officers.
The second category is those who should not be in prison because they are mentally ill, drunks or inadequates. That has been mentioned during the debate many times. I should have liked to discuss that problem, but time does not permit me to do so. However, I endorse what many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said about that.
The May committee recognised the difficulties and reached two conclusions. First, it said:
As in so many other cases, therefore, prisons pay the penalty for being the resources that are available as opposed to the one that is appropriate in the particular case.
And it said that we should look at the whole category of persistent petty offenders and encourage all the experiments that we can by the probation service, the local authorities, the Department of Health and Social Security and the voluntary agencies, to see how that part of the prison population can be reduced.
The third category of persons in our prisons which could be reduced is that which sparked off the recent debate. I refer to those for whom other forms of punishment must be more appropriate. The May committee pointed out that, while the population of England and Wales is about four times that of the Netherlands, the prison population is more than 12 times that of the Netherlands. The Netherlands does not seem to be experiencing a breakdown in law and order.
I was recently privileged to hear an account by Mr. Clive Morgan of the Gwent scheme for community service. Obviously the candidates have to be chosen with care and much depends on the quality and patience of the supervisors. Much depends on the co-operation of the local community in terms of finding the candidates jobs, but it has turned out to be a constructive alternative for those who would otherwise be adding to the prison population.
We were pleased to hear the Home Secretary announce an increase of about 150 in the probation service. If such experiments are to mean anything at all, they will be demanding in terms of the time of probation officers. Perhaps the Home Secretary, together with the Treasury, will consider whether these modest resources will be sufficient, because there has already been great concern among probation officers that those who have completed their training find difficulty in obtaining employment. It may be that the 150 are less than the number that we require for the running we must do to stay in the same place.
The other area of debate related to reducing the length of sentences. Virtually everyone agreed that there is no merit in long rather than short sentences. We have heard that again and again. We heard it from the May committee, the advisory council on the penal system and the Select Committee on Home Affairs. My hon. Friend

the Member for York made that case articulately this evening, so it would be superfluous to repeat it. I am not suggesting that simply by reducing maximum sentences we can automatically reduce the length of sentences which the courts pass, but I do not believe that the courts would not loyally follow a reduction by Parliament of maximum sentences. I believe that they would follow it when considering not only the maximum end of the scale, but throughout the scale. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for York that the training for deputy judges is a little more sophisticated now than when he underwent such training. It still may not be sufficient, but it is improving all the time. And, in fairness, one should say that the higher judiciary has recognised the need for shorter sentences. The present Lord Chief Justice has shown that he is acutely aware of the problem. For the first time in history a Lord Chief Justice has given a lead towards shorter sentences simply on the ground that prisons cannot accommodate any more prisoners.
I had wanted to say something about the Home Secretary's proposals and the way in which he has been persuaded out of his first thoughts, which I still believe were the best. My hon. Friends have made that case again and again, and I should not be performing any service to the House by taking up more time analysing it. I accept, of course, that if the House came to a decision the judiciary would not seek to frustrate it. But the judiciary's reasoning leaves me a little puzzled. If it is true that all those who are now serving short sentences will inevitably re-offend the moment that they are released, it does not matter much which scheme we choose. In any event, we shall not reduce the prison population. But if some prisoners are not likely to re-offend and if there is a prospect that they will become rehabilitated, giving them that opportunity will not only have a beneficial effect on the community, but will reduce the burden on the prison service.
So we are not satisfied with the Home Secretary's announcement. We believe that he is a humane man who is as horrified by the existing conditions as any hon. Member who has spoken. That is also true of the Minister of State. But the prison governors, the prison officers and prisoners serving their sentences—who are not always heard speaking with one voice—all say the same thing on this issue. It is clear that all three goups have virtually reached the limits of their endurance. In the name of humanity, they are looking for a sign that the House has grasped the situation.
In that context, we welcome what the Home Secretary said, as far as it went, but we still believe that it is too little, too late. That is why we shall divide the House.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I am sorry that the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) should have ended on a note of such disappointment and scepticism. I thought it a little hard that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should have been upbraided by him for tardiness in implementing the May committee's recommendations and that the prison officers' dispute should have been held up as an illustration of that. The prison officers' dispute took place because my right hon. Friend sought to implement those recommendations.
I shall refer later to the building programme that my right hon. Friend announced, but I take it a little hard that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West


should say that the prison programme announced today did not greatly impress hon. Members. It can fairly be described as the largest prison building programme—both in terms of new construction and of major reconstruction—so far this century. It ill becomes a representative of the Labour Party, which did so very little in its last term of office, to say that the programme does not greatly impress him.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned remand prisoners. Of course, we are deeply concerned about the length of time that they have to spend awaiting trial. In the eye of the law they are innocent, but they constitute about one-sixth of the prison population. However, unless we legislate for bail to be more readily available—which would not be wise or justifiable—we can only shorten the length of time they spend in prison by shortening the delay in coming to trial.
The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have been paying close attention to the problem. Considerable progress has been made in the South-East, which is the worst area for delays in coming to trial. I assure the House that we regard this matter as serious and that considerable progress has been made. This is the second debate within a week in which hon. Members have had the opportunity to debate a motion that includes the crisis in our prisons. I welcome it. The more that is known about the subject the better.
As several hon. Members have remarked, no one has done more than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the last two-and-a-half years to draw attention to the crisis. All hon. Members who have spoken have at least been united in their condemnation of conditions in many of our prisons and in the recognition of the compelling need for change. I am not referring to all prisons. Some stand comparison with the best in the world. In far too many, however, the conditions, as the Government amendment recognises, are an affront to a civilised society and equally a continued threat to law and order. Those conditions bear not only upon the inmates but also, heavily, upon the prison service for whom I express, on behalf of the Government, the warmest admiration.
It is not true—this is greatly to the credit of the prison service—that those who work in prisons are at the end of their tether, although they earnestly wish to see better prison conditions to do the constructive part, as distinct from the straight containing part, of their job. I went to Brixton prison early this morning. I should like to express my deep appreciation of the wise, humane and discreet way in which prison officers there are carrying out their duties in difficult circumstances.
Of those conditions, overcrowding is certainly the worst and has to be reduced. The causes of the overcrowding are complex. It does no justice to the problem to contend that the number of offenders sentenced to prison and the length of custodial sentences should be reduced by the Home Secretary, as the motion seeks. We have to remind ourselves, for reasons far more important than mere linguistics, that, within the framework laid down by Parliament, it is for the judiciary and not for the Executive to determine sentences in such a way as to meet the justice of each particular case—justice between the offender and the State, in which respect I take note of the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, justice between the offender and his victim and justice between one offender and another. This is central but it is not reflected in the Opposition motion. The

scale of the demands on the prison system must always remain doubly uncertain. The rate of crime is unpredictable and the judicial response to it must always vary according to the circumstances.
Governments have a responsibility that is partly expressed in two propositions. The first is that long prison sentences must always be available for those convicted of violent offences so that, for the duration of those sentences at least, they shall not be in a position to injure the public further. The second is that sufficient and humane prison accommodation must always be available as a front line of defence for the public. These propositions are reflected in the Government amendment. No less important, the amendment describes the means by which they can properly be fulfilled, including a reduction of the prison population through the encouragement of non-custodial sentences and a sustained prison building programme.
Hon. Members have raised questions such as the choice between supervised release or partially suspended sentences and the prison building programme. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I postpone my response on those topics until later in my speech. The other topics to attract most attention have been the problems of fine defaulters and maintenance defaulters in prison, the mentally disordered, drunks, remand prisoners, lower maximum sentences and the position and the attitudes of the judiciary.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) congratulated my right hon. Friend on having done more than his two predecessors. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He can say it again and, to do him justice, he has said it previously. The hon. Gentleman, like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who opened the debate, called for an amnesty.
In my view, more injustice than justice is associated with an amnesty. We should think, for example, of those who are excluded from an amnesty by being one week too late. That is a defeat for everyone who believes in the judicial determination of these matters. Moreover, one amnesty is expected to beget another. I noted with pleasure that the right hon. Gentleman felt that there was a place for deterrence in prison sentences, but the deterrent feature of a prison sentence is greatly undermined by the expectation of an amnesty. So amnesties are completely unacceptable.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk and others spoke of the desirability of reducing maximum sentences. That will not meet the position. Maximum sentences are seldom imposed and, when they are, it is to meet exceptionally bad crime. We need to seek to encourage a reduction of the normal or the average length. It would not be right to cut down maximum sentences in the way suggested, for example, by the advisory council on the penal system. If we did that, we should not allow sufficient scope for the courts to deal with really serious offences. The hon. Gentleman also said that the Magistrates' Association is against partially suspended sentences. That is not so, as can be seen from the letter written to The Times a few days ago by the chairman of that association, Lady Ralphs, when she said that she had one major reservation but that it had now been dealt with.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) made a speech which was an ornament to this debate. He condemned the implication in the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that the courts are manned only by judges waiting for the


opportunity to send people to prison. He said that, had no steps been taken by the judiciary as well as by anyone else, to change the pattern that was apparent by 1970 and 1971, the Home Office forecasts were that there would be not 45,000, not 55,000, but as many as 65,000 people in prison by the end of this decade, or shortly afterwards. The point that he justifiably made was that the judiciary has recognised the need for shorter sentences and has implemented them in its policy.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that in 1974–79 a Government were in power who took no action. I shall come back to that matter in the context of the prison building programme, or the absence of such, during those years. He said that prison must be a traumatic event, and that a short prison sentence can meet the need for deterrence. I believe that that is more widely understood. If we were to increase remission, he feared that the sentence would be increased. I think that there is justification for that belief, in the light of the consultations that we have had.
When my right hon. and learned Friend said that he was a cynic about section 47, and founded that cynicism upon what happened in cases of suspended sentences, he was not comparing like with like. Fully suspended sentences have to be all or nothing. They were mandatory in the case of a six-months' sentence, or less for several years after they were introduced. That was very unpopular with the courts, as mandatory sentences always are, and that distorted the consequences. He asked about the parole rate failure. It is under 10 per cent.—or so it is believed. I think that I have dealt with my hon. and learned Friend's principal questions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), who is so well-versed in these matters, asked a number of questions. I am grateful for his congratulations on what my right hon. Friend announced today. He asked about weekend prisons. I can do no better than to refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) said about them. He pointed to the difficult practical considerations that arise, not only for resources but for the prison service. He said that if someone has to lose his liberty, let him do so, and, if not, let him stay at large in the community. He said that there should be no halfway house. We shall re-examine that question, but there is much to be said in favour of what my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) said about that. We shall continue to encourage the use of senior attendance centres. My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not take further time to deal with the other important points that he made.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) who said that the judiciary has let the Home Secretary down. There are many reasons why the number of committals fell during the prison officer's dispute. There is no ground whatsoever for the slur that the hon. Gentleman put upon the judiciary. He said that the prison service contained many people who displayed racial prejudice. He feared that that was so. I reject that slur. I can draw upon personal experience, although mine is only an impression. At Brixton prison at 7.30 this morning I heard a report in the warmest terms by a white prison officer about a black prison officer who was said to be a

very fine prison officer indeed. That is typical of the general view in the prison service, and I am not in the least surprised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington will forgive me if I do not go as deeply as I should like into his speech. He said that he supported persuading the judiciary to give shorter sentences. He said that he was in favour of supervised release and of the principle that the court itself should decide. I agree. My hon. Friend also made an important point about crime prevention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) said that she was in favour of partially suspended sentences. She supported them as Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee as far back as 1978. I am glad that we are able to meet her request. We shall certainly keep under careful review whether offences should remain imprisonable, and, if so, what the maximum sentence should be. My hon. Friend asked about that.
I hope that other hon. Members will forgive me if I do not deal specifically with their remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) insisted that the final decision on early release should remain with the judiciary. That weighed heavily in the decision that my right hon. Friend has taken.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) referred to the Lord Chief Justice and the Court of Appeal. They are giving a clear lead on the need for shorter sentences where they are consistent with the protection of the public. Sentencing is a matter of the greatest concern. The hon. Gentleman should know of the great care that is taken to instruct new arrivals on the judicial bench in modern sentencing theories. It is wrong to imply that the judiciary has fixed ideas in that regard.
We should be wrong to place all our faith in attempts to improve prison conditions and shorten sentences. We must encourage non-custodial sentences and widen the range available to the courts. That is the effect of the Bill introduced today. But we cannot ignore, as does the Opposition's motion, the building of more prisons. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said in an intervention that the motion was silent on that point. That is an extraordinary omission, as many hon. Members have noticed.
It is instructive to examine the decisions by the last Labour Government from which our overcrowding problems today in part derive. In 1974 that Government inherited a prison department that envisaged a continuing programme of new prison building, coupled with increasing emphasis on redevelopment of the Victorian cell blocks. Those words are from one of the annual reports of the prison department. The then Government inherited a prison department that was looking forward to a continuing programme. That takes up the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn, who was more responsible, under the then Home Secretary, than anyone for laying the foundations for that expectation.
I quote from the annual reports on the work of the prison department. The 1974 report stated that as part of the review of the present building programme
it became necessary to abandon plans for two more category C prisons at Gartree in Leicestershire and Wrabness in Essex, which would have provided some 1,600 places for inmates in the lower security categories and to defer other schemes.
The 1975 report stated:


As a result of the 1975 public expenditure survey, the estimated expenditure for the present building programme for the years 1975–76 to 1978–79 was reduced by over £40 million. This has meant the indefinite deferment of three major schemes that were to produce 1,600 places by 1979–80.
Five other schemes were also deferred.
Together, these five schemes would have produced just over 1,700 new places in the years after 1979–80.
The 1976 report stated:
At a time when the prison population (and the proportion of prisoners requiring higher degrees of security) is continuing to increase and essential services, as well as actual accommodation in older establishments are a continuing cause for concern, a reduced prison building programme presents the Prison Department with the difficult issue of conflicting priorities. It becomes more a question of allocating resources so as to ensure minimum dislocation than of ensuring steady progress.
In 1977, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn has already reminded us, the report stated:
The essential redevelopment of the Victorian estate seemed in 1977 more remote than at any time in the last 30 years.
Therefore, the inheritance to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary succeeded in May 1979 was not a happy one. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), twitting me about section 47 and the partially suspended sentences, said that I was a civil lawyer. The Roman lawyers would have called my right hon. Friend's inheritance a hereditas damnosa, one that called immediately for extremely large expenditure, and not one to be welcomed. Much of the harm had been done by the cancellations and deferments of the previous Labour Government. They were the less excusable because they coincided with an annual rise in the prison population of ominous proportions. The extent of their effect on planned new prison places can be gauged from the extracts that I have quoted from the annual reports of the prison department.
It is true that we inherited from that Government a belated programme of prison starts, as distinct from building, in 1981–82 and 1982–83 and of thoughts for starts in the following year. We have developed and greatly expanded that programme into what my hon. Friend has described as the largest prison building programme for a century.
It is rubbish to talk of capitulation when my right hon. Friend has steered away from what he at first put forward as "something to be discussed" in the foreword of the Red Book, "The Review of Parole", a document available as a basis for informed discussion of these matters. This is not a newspaper proprietor, for example, who has been defeated on what he has described as his last offer. Not in the least. This is the Home Secretary who has heeded the consultations that he specifically invited. It is not enough to deplore the conditions that exist in so many of our prisons, deplorable though they are. It is not enough to call on the Home Secretary to make the prisoners fewer or their sentences shorter. The House must go deeper than that and, just as tenaciously, it must hold to the concept of an independent judiciary. The strategy by which we can do that is to be found in our amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided:Ayes 231, Noes 287.

Division No. 14]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Anderson, Donald


Adams, Allen
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Allaun, Frank
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Alton, David
Ashton, Joe





Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Hamilton, James(Bothwell)


Bagier, GordonA.T.
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tralFife)


Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel(H'wd)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Beith,A.J.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Heffer, EricS.


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Bidwell, Sydney
Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Boothroyd, MissBetty
HomeRobertson, John


Bradley, Tom
Homewood, William


Bray, DrJeremy
Hooley, Frank


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Horamjohn


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Howells, Geraint


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Hoyle, Douglas


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)
Huckfield, Les


Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Mark(Durham)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n&amp;P
Janner, HonGreville


Campbell, Ian
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Campbell-Savours, Dale
John, Brynmor


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnston, Russell(Inverness)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cartwright, John
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cohen, Stanley
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lambie, David


Conlan, Bernard
Lamborn, Harry


Cowans, Harry
Lamond, James


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Leadbitter, Ted


Crawshaw, Richard
Lestor, Miss Joan


Crowther, Stan
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Litherland, Robert


Cunningham, G. (IslingtonS)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cunningham, DrJ. (W'h'n)
Lyon, Alexander(York


Dalyell, Tam
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Davidson, Arthur
McDonald, DrOonagh


Davies, RtHonDenzil (L 'lli)
McKay, Allen(Penistone)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McKelvey, William


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
MacKenzie, RtHon Gregor


Deakins, Eric
McMahon, Andrew


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McNally, Thomas


Dempsey, James
McNamara, Kevin


Dewar, Donald
McTaggart, Robert


Dixon, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dobson, Frank
Magee, Bryan


Dormand, Jack
Marks, Kenneth


Douglas, Dick
Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)


Dubs, Alfred
Martin, M(G'gowS'burn)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunnett, Jack
Maynard, MissJoan


Dunwoody, Hon MrsG.
Meacher, Michael


Eadie, Alex
Mellish, RtHonRobert


Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)
Mikardo, Ian


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Millan, RtHonBruce


English, Michael
Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Evans, John (Newton)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ewing, Harry
Morton, George


Faulds, Andrew
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Fitch, Alan
Newens, Stanley


Flannery, Martin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
O'Halloran, Michael


Forrester, John
O'Neill, Martin


Foster, Derek
Palmer, Arthur


Foulkes, George
Park, George


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Parker, John


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, John (NorwichS)
Penhaligon, David


George, Bruce
Pitt, WilliamHenry


Gilbert, Rt Hon DrJohn
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Ginsburg, David
Prescott, John


Golding, John
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Graham, Ted
Race, Reg


Grant, John (IslingtonC)
Radice, Giles






Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Roberts, Alan (Bootle)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thomas, Mike (NewcastleE)


Robertson, George
Thomas, DrR. (Carmarthen)


Robinson, G. (CoventryNW)
Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)


Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Tilley, John


Rooker, J. W.
Torney, Tom


Roper, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Wainwright, E.(DearneV)


Rowlands, Ted
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Sever, John
Watkins, David


Sheerman, Barry
Weetch, Ken


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Welsh, Michael


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
White, FrankR.


Short, Mrs Renée
White, J. (G'gowPollok)


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Whitehead, Phillip


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


Silverman, Julius
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)


Snape, Peter
Wilson, RtHonSirH. (H'ton)


Soley, Clive
Wilson, William (C'trySE)


Spearing, Nigel
Winnick, David


Spriggs, Leslie
Woodall, Alec


Stallard, A.W.
Woolmer, Kenneth


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Stoddart, David
Wright, Sheila


Stott, Roger



Strang, Gavin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Straw, Jack
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. James Tinn.


Summerskill, HonDrShirley





NOES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Aitken, Jonathan
Chalker, Mrs.Lynda


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Chapman, Sydney


Ancram, Michael
Churchill, W.S.


Arnold, Tom
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Robert(PrestonN)
Clegg, SirWalter


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Cockeram, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert
Cope, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cormack, Patrick


Bell, SirRonald
Corrie, John


Bendall, Vivian
Costain, SirAlbert


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Cranborne, Viscount


Berry, HonAnthony
Critchley, Julian


Best, Keith
Crouch, David


Bevan, DavidGilroy
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Blackburn, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Blaker, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.


Body, Richard
Dover, Denshore


Bonsor, SirNicholas
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)


Bowden, Andrew
Dykes, Hugh


Braine, SirBernard
Eden, RtHonSirJohn


Bright, Graham
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Brinton, Tim
Eggar, Tim


Brittan, Rt.Hon.Leon
Elliott, SirWilliam


Brooke, HonPeter
Emery, Peter


Brotherton, Michael
Fairgrieve, SirRussell


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;SC'n)
Faith, MrsSheila


Browne, John(Winchester)
Farr, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fell, Anthony


Bryan, SirPaul
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt.Hon.A.
Fisher, SirNigel


Buck, Antony
Fletcher, A.(Ed'nb'ghN)


Budgen, Nick
Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles


Bulmer, Esmond
Fookes, Miss Janet


Burden, SirFrederick
Forman, Nigel


Butcher, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Fox, Marcus


Carlisle, John (LutonWest)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fraser, Peter (SouthAngus)





Fry, Peter
Meyer, SirAnthony


Gardiner, George(Reigate)
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Gardner, Edward (SFylde)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mills,Peter (West Devon)


Gilmour, Rt Hon SirIan
Miscampbell, Norman


Glyn, DrAlan
Moate, Roger


Goodhart, SirPhilip
Monro, SirHector


Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus


Goodlad, Alastair
Moore, John


Gorst, John
Morgan, Geraint


Gow, Ian
Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)


Gower, SirRaymond
Morrison, HonC. (Devizes)


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, HonP. (Chester)


Greenway, Harry
Mudd, David


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt.Edm'ds)
Murphy, Christopher


Griffiths, PeterPortsm'thN)
Myles, David


Grist, Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Grylls, Michael
Needham, Richard


Gummer, JohnSelwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, HonA.
Neubert, Michael


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Newton, Tony


Hampson, DrKeith
Normanton, Tom


Hannam, John
Nott, RtHonJohn


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Cranley


Hastings, Stephen
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, Richard (SWHerts)


Hawksley, Warren
Parkinson, RtHonCecil


Hayhoe, Barney
Parris, Matthew


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Patten, Christopher(Bath)


Heddle, John
Patten, John(Oxford)


Henderson, Barry
Pattie, Geoffrey


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Percival, SirIan


Hicks, Robert
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pink, R.Bonner


Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Pollock, Alexander


Holland, Philip(Carlton)
Porter, Barry


Hooson, Tom
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hordern, Peter
Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Prior, Rt Hon James


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idf'd)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Raison, Timothy


Irving. Charles (Cheltenham)
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Tim


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rhodes James, Robert


Kaberry, SirDonald
RhysWilliams, SirBrandon


Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine
Ridley, HonNicholas


Kitson, SirTimothy
Ridsdale, SirJulian


Knox, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lang, Ian
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Latham, Michael
Roberts, M. (CardiffNW)


Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rossi, Hugh


Lee, John
Rost, Peter


LeMarchant, Spencer
Royle, SirAnthony


Lennox-Boyd, HonMark
Sainsbury, HonTimothy


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sandelson, Neville


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Scott, Nicholas


Luce, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shelton, William(Streatham)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Richard


MacGregorJohn
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Silvester, Fred


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, M (N'bury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)
Speller, Tony


Madel, David
Spence, John


Major, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, Michael(Arundel)
Sproat, Iain


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Squire, Robin


Maude, Rt Hon SirAngus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mawby, Ray
Stanley, John


Mawhinney, DrBrian
Steen, Anthony


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Martin


Mayhew, Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon D(W Isles)






Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)
Waller, Gary


Stokes, John
Walters, Dennis


Tapsell, Peter
Ward, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)
Warren, Kenneth


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Watson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wellbeloved, James


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Donald
Wheeler, John


Thorne, Neil(IlfordSouth)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Thornton, Malcolm
Whitney, Raymond


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wickenden, Keith


Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)
Winterton, Nicholas


vanStraubenzee, SirW.
Wolfson, Mark


Vaughan, DrGerard
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Viggers, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waddington, David



Wakeham, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Waldegrave, HonWilliam
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Walker, B. (Perth)



Wall, SirPatrick

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, recognising that, as a result of increasing crime and decades of neglect, conditions in many of Her Majesty's Prisons are now both an affront to a civilised society and a continued threat to law and order, endorses the Government's strategy of providing new and improved prison accommodation through a sustained building programme, and of seeking the reduction in the prison population by encouraging the use by the courts of non-custodial sentences and shorter sentences of imprisonment, consistent with the need to protect the public.

Orders of the Day — Social Security

Mr. Brynmor John: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security Benefit Up-rating Regulations 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 1510), dated 26th October 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it will be in the interests of the House to discuss at the same time the following social security motions:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Aggregation) Regulations 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 1524), dated 21st October 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 1525), dated 26th October 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Regulations 1981 (SI, 1981, No. 1526), dated 23rd October 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Regulations 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 1527), dated 26th October 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 1528), dated 23rd October 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Urgent Cases) Regulations 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 1529), dated 26th October 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be annulled.

Mr. John: First, the Government are lucky in that on a day when they have unerringly once again selected for their policy of continuous sacrifice those who are without work, through no fault of their own, and those who are in receipt of short-term social security benefit, these orders are consolidating measures. In cutting by 2 per cent. the short-term benefit and unemployment benefit the Government have singled out the weakest in the community for deliberate discrimination.
All hon. Members who heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer's sheer insensitivity when talking about the unemployment problems this afternoon will know that he is a man who just does not comprehend or sympathise with the problems of those people, especially the unemployed. The question that was not answered in the Chancellor's statement—I hope that the Minister will try to answer it this evening, or on a more suitable occasion—is why the Chancellor and the Government think that the unemployed and the short-term social security recipients should be made the scapegoats of the Government's financial incompetence. That merely sets the scene, because the accident that this is merely a series of consolidation measures prevents the Opposition from mounting the immediate and sustained attack on the squalid meanness and gross inhumanity of the Chancellor's measures that would otherwise have been mounted.
As you have said, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with seven sets of regulations, which are needed to consolidate what was hastily done in 1980. The 1980 regulations were

drafted, and the catalogue of errors and the incomprehensibility of some of them, and the extremely complicated nature of others, meant that by July 1981 two more sets of amending regulations had to be brought into operation.
It is fair to say to those who have to attempt to find their way through these minefields that the regulations as at present constituted are a total mess. They represent a sort of legislative "snakes and ladders", in which ascertaining the exact legal position of an individual is extremely difficult. It probably dooms most people to failure, but even if they can ascertain their position by dint of hard work, they then spend many unhappy hours trying to find a way through the regulations as at present constituted.
Presumably—and I hope that the hon. Lady will deal with the point when she replies—the trades disputes regulations and determination of questions regulations, together with the requirement regulations, also await consolidation, so there is another instalment to come.
Faced with such a mess, we would not ordinarily oppose the consolidation. However, I wish to point out the consequence to other people of the necessity to consolidate the measures. Law is not a cosy occupation for legislators. Especially in this area it has a meaning for people outside both Houses whose rights are affected and whose livelihood is vitally affected. It is because of their bewilderment and their rights that we take exception to the way in which the Government are consolidating the measures.
I put two points to the hon. Lady about the regulations—points that have been communicated to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). The first is whether the resources regulations calculate the £2,000 capital in a different way. As she will realise, if there is a difference between that and the previous set of regulations it goes beyond a properly consolidated measure.
Secondly, I press the hon. Lady about the single payments regulations in the light of a case, details of which my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr can give but which I intend to outline briefly. Under regulation 9 of the old regulations there was an escape clause or a way in which a single person could obtain a cooker or heater without having to go through the period of six months' incapacity. The new regulations suggest that that is not possible. I believe that a local office in North Shields told a claimant that there was such a difference and deprived the claimant of the single payment. If that is so, it seems to me—because the local officials were certain that the regulations had been changed by the consolidation measures—that it is properly a matter that should be investigated by the Minister. If it is correct, the Minister should agree without demur to the annulment of that regulation, because it should not be consolidated. I look forward to the Minister's answer on that point.
I return to the question of how recipients of social security and those affected by the regulations know what their entitlement is. The main way in which claimants are advised of their rights is by means of an HMSO publication, known as the "yellow book", which I believe is used widely by the many voluntary bodies and workers active in the social services.
Last year the book started at a price of £14, which is hardly in the paperback class. With every alteration of the regulations out comes a fresh supplement, without which the book is as relevant as last year's calendar. During the first six months after the regulations were passed there


were three supplements, which cost an extra £10·20. Then, for those who were unwise enough to believe that their ordeal was over, and no doubt because of inflation, we have had four supplements in the past six months. That is a total of seven supplements during the past year, the latter four of which cost an extra £17·45.
The unhappy subscribers to the yellow book have got as far as November, because they received their supplement for July only in November. Now, seven supplements and £27·65 later, the cost of the yellow book to the hapless subscriber is £41·65. That is wholly out of the range of the pocket—even if it were within the inclination—of any claimant who wished to consult the regulations.
The voluntary bodies, which often operate on a low-budget shoestring, are hardly in a position to buy a book costing £41·65, with the threat of another three regulations. The regulations that we are considering tonight will be added to that amount. They do not tell those who subscribed to the yellow book anything new. They simply consolidate information that is currently available. Every amendment must be circulated. If a person relying on the regulations inaccurately quotes the authority he will be less likely to receive benefit.
How much will tonight's exercise add to the burden on the voluntary bodies and others active in the area of welfare rights? They are already short of money. Will they have to fork out another £15 or £20? Are we now in the era where the yellow book will cost £60, with more amendments to come? Where will the process end?
Will the Government consider two matters? First, can this supplement be issued free of charge to existing subscribers, with the cost borne on the DHSS Vote? After all, it was the drafting or misdrafting of the regulations that caused the need to issue an additional supplement. Secondly, I enter a plea on behalf of new purchasers. They should pay only the cost of the additional material, and not the cost of the material that is already out of date or scrapped.
We must consider the effect of the regulations and amendments on all the other non-official publications that seek to guide people, at various levels, on their entitlement to welfare benefits. All the references to regulations will have to be amended. Where regulations are laid that come into existence three weeks later, it is wholly impossible for even the most commercial of publishers or the most diligent of private editors to update the regulations and references in the non-official books. Those books, published as an aid to people who wish to know their welfare rights, will be misleading or out of date. The further obfuscation of welfare rights will continue.
We must remember that the regulations provide a guide to both the rights and the entitlements of some of the most disadvantaged sections of our community. Often they need great help, not only with the legislation but with commissioners' decisions and other matters. The whole effect is a complication in speed of application and expense and puts necessary information out of the reach of ordinary people and those called upon to advise those seeking welfare benefits. There will be little semblance of fairness between the claiment and the State.
I do not wish to raise the blood pressure of the Government, wedded as they are to leanness, fitness and competitiveness, but is it not time that they considered subsidised publications to tell people of their rights? Should there not be an annual publication—this question

has long been discussed—to update the regulations? As I understand it, the unsubsidised cost of such an annual publication would be about £10. For the poor person who would have to face a charge of £60 for the yellow book, that might sound like the bargain of the year. With a small subsidy from the Government, an annual volume of that sort could be produced at a cost of £5. That would be within the pockets of many more people and organisations.
The snag, as the Minister will say, is that the frequency with which we are faced with these consolidation measures and the need to revise regulations which have been rushed through the House means that we cannot always meet the date of an annual publication. It is true that we would have to pick upon one date by which all amended regulations should be made to operate—say, from the date of the uprating every November. It is preferable for the regulations to have to wait a while before they come into force in order to serve what is, after all, the Government's chief responsibility, and to discharge their primary function, which is to enable those who are primarily affected by the legislation to understand their rights and entitlements, or, if they cannot do so, to get the relevant expertise and the most up-to-date advice possible.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) has joined the ranks of the social security Members. Without being patronising, I think that he will find the subject less controversial than defence matters. I am delighted that some of my hon. Friends have prayed against the regulations to highlight their increasing complexity.
It is no wonder that we are living in the kind of society that breeds welfare rights officers, claimants unions and all the rest. As a Member of Parliament, I regarded myself at one time as being fairly knowledgeable about social security matters. It is now beyond my comprehension of the subject to give advice to any constituent. There are so many benefits. The rates are continually changing because of inflation. What we are now discussing are regulations which flow from years of study by the Supplementary Benefits Commission in an attempt to simplify procedures. If these are simplified procedures, I am almost longing for those that I could understand before they were simplified.
I see a DHSS office as almost like the present Government. Perhaps the manager may be in charge, or the captain may be in charge of the ship, but the further one gets from the top, the more confusion there is, with one person knowing only a wee bit about his particular job. That shows how difficult it is to be sure that a client or a constituent is being treated properly in regard to all the benefits that may be available to that person.
Paragraph 6 on page 7 of the Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Regulations deals with capital resources to be disregarded. It is always difficult to tackle a Minister who is sympathetic, and the Under-Secretary has acquired such a reputation. Nevertheless, when we are examining the vexed question of a person having £2,000-worth of capital resources, in ignoring the value of a home we are overlooking the tendency for people to borrow or to acquire an income by giving away some of their rights to that capital asset. I see the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) nodding his head. I assume that he knows something about such things. Has this matter been properly investigated? If somebody attracts an


income from his home, will he be treated on all fours with a poor person who does not own a home but who may have scraped together £2,000 after a lifetime?
If the Government pursue their present policies, they will have to tighten up on such issues. There is no end to the scrutiny that will be required of those who happen to be owner-occupiers. In my constituency, I doubt whether there are as many as 100 owner-occupiers, despite the fact that there are about 25,000 houses. This is a matter of genuine concern. Labour Members have made representations about the absurd £2,000 cut-off and about the need to review it. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. The issue highlights the fact that many people must have valuable capital assets, although they live in dire poverty. I hope that the Minister will tell us something of the discussions that have taken place.
I turn to the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations and to the subject of fuel disconnections. I do not care whether Labour Members or anyone else agrees with me, but I object in principle to public bodies having to write off the debts of private individuals. I do not care whether it is Linwood or Talbot that is getting away with public funds, or British Leyland in Bathgate, West Lothian or whether an individual, with whom one has some sympathy, has got into difficulties. I see no reason always to use public funds to pay off private debts.
The electricity boards and other public bodies that are owed money by constituents will not go bust simply because the debt must stand on the books for five, or even 10 years. Therefore, I am not arguing for increased public money from the Department of Health and Social Security or from the social work department in order to pay off debts to the electricity board, but for a much more—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The hon. Gentleman should be arguing about the first regulations and he should relate his remarks to them. The other regulations are purely consolidation measures, and the hon. Gentleman can argue only whether they should be consolidated or not.

Mr. Brown: We are always learning. That narrows my comments. I am sure that the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations cover my point somewhere. I am not trying—as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to be out of order. I genuinely misunderstood the situation. However, I suggest that the Government should have shown more sympathy. A point of principle is not involved. I understand that provision is made to take on board the payment of a charge when a prepayment metre is installed or altered. I think that the Minister knows about the controversy over the South of Scotland Electricity Board and Scotland's social work department. I beg her to consider the regulations sympathetically. The principle is the earliest reconnection of supply consistent with safeguarding the interests of the board's current requirements rather than the meeting of outstanding debts. I hope that this matter can be covered by the regulations.

Mr. Mike Thomas: I intervene briefly to seek information relating to the regulations in the light of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement this afternoon. Given the right hon. and learned Gentleman's sleight of hand in referring to the

uprating of benefits, I should like the Minister to list those benefits that are regarded as short-term benefits, which will be increased only by the rate of inflation and will not have the shortfall of 2 per cent. made good. The hon. Lady may prefer to give her answer through the Official Report, because I doubt whether she will be able to give a reply now. I hope that she will tell us the number of people who will be affected by the failure to uprate benefits to make good the deficiency through under-estimation of inflation.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: There must be concern about these regulations coming before the House soon after the Chancellor's statement. A consensus has existed for a long time among political parties that the main aim should be to reduce the number of people who need to rely on social security and to see instead that they receive benefits as of right. This afternoon, however, the Chancellor spelt out firmly that his policy was to take away benefits and to place more people on social security. The regulations before the House explain the complexity of the system and the fact that many people fail to obtain their rights because of that complexity. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is taking away benefits that are relatively easy to understand and is pushing people into the safety net of the complicated social security system. This is a total change of policy.
It is ironic that the House has passed a social security Bill that was supposed to make the regulations simpler and easier for people to understand and to give benefits to those people as of right. Hon. Members who have read the regulations cannot believe that they are simpler. I am sure that the Opposition will wish to return to the argument for taking people off, and not putting them on, social security.
I wish to press the Minister on the issue of capital resources. The regulations deal with the consolidation of uprating. The Government say that they are inquiring into the capital cut-off at £2,000. I accept that the Government are acting in good faith, but they have taken a long time. It is accepted that the Government were wrong in their legislation. I hope soon to hear an announcement that they intend to put matters right. While the inquiry has proceeded, inflation has continued at a rate of over 10 per cent. for 12 months. Whatever the Government decision on the long-term problem, they had a duty, in these regulations, to uprate the sum of £2,000 to at least £2,200. This may not have made a great deal of difference, but it would have made some difference to those now caught in the cut-off.
In their failure to take account of inflation the Government have denied social security to another group of people. There is no excuse for the Government's not having included them in the uprating order with all the other areas in respect of which they have increased the amount. The Government say that they accept that they have to come up quickly with a long-term solution, but they should have said here and now that they intended to put on the extra £200.
I want to know whether these are merely consolidation measures. If they are not merely consolidation measures, why did they not go to the social security advisory committee for approval? If that has not happened, are they ultra vires? If they are ultra vires, will the Government withdraw them tonight, or at least accept the humble Address in respect of them?
The Under-Secretary should give us an early reply, because we may not be in order in discussing these regulations if they are not correctly laid, and they should be withdrawn by the Minister at the earliest possible opportunity. We should not have to wait until the end of the debate for a statement, or we shall be debating regulations that clearly are out of order.
It is a sad day when a Government firmly say that they want to push more and more people on to social security and supplementary benefit rather than long-term benefit. We need an early statement by the Government that they will operate the £2,000 cut-off, at least to the extent of 10 per cent. We also want a statement from the Government on the question whether some of the regulations are ultra vires.

Mr. George Foulkes: I share my hon. Friend's frustration at not being able to talk about the appalling announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon and at being confined to the more limited but equally important aspects of the regulations that are before us.
I shall follow what my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said about the £2,000 capital cut-off. I agree with him that we should have expected an uprating at least in line with inflation. Like him, I am extremely disappointed that that does not appear before us.
I want to ask the Under-Secretary a question about part II of the resources regulations, which refers to the calculation of capital resources. One or two people have come to see me about the calculation of the surrender value of insurance policies as part of the calculation of capital resources. I remember one Conservative Member asking "Since when has it been Government policy to have a tax on thrift?" That applies particularly to insurance policies. Many people have taken out insurance policies for the very good reason that they do not have occupational pensions and have no likelihood of getting any other pensions. It is one way in which they can be thrifty and save for their future. To ask such people to surrender their insurance policies before they have expired is a foolish thing to do. Those people will not get the full worth of those policies. It is a particularly foolish and unwise thing for any Government to do.
I have looked at the regulations—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) understands these matters inside out, and no doubt the Under-Secretary knows them equally well—but I cannot find the proviso, the justification, the reason or authority for this regulation to include the surrender value of insurance policies. Yet that is being done. So I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell me, first, by what authority it is being done, because I have gone through all the regulations and can find no authority. Secondly, even if the Under-Secretary can find some authority, what is the justification or rationale for making people surrender insurance policies—often very small policies—at that stage? It is an unwise and unfair thing to ask them to do.
My second argument relates to the take-up of benefits, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) referred. In reply to a question the other day the Under-Secretary of State repeated the 1977 figures for the take-up of supplementary pensions. She said that 610,000

pensioners were not taking up supplementary pensions and that the average value of each was £3·10 a week. That means that £1·9 million is not taken up each week.
I blame one person for those pensions not being taken up—the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). His campaign against the so-called social security scroungers has frightened many people who are entitled to the benefit. They do not take up their entitlements for fear of being labelled scroungers. The Government's duty is to counter the appalling propaganda in which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South indulges.
My friends on the Strathclyde regional council tried to do something, but they were berated by the Under-Secretary of State. They had some success. If the hon. Lady does not like Strathclyde's method she must say what the Government intend to do to ensure that pensioners who are losing £3 a week receive that money and gain access to the many other benefits to which supplementary pensioners are entitled.
The Under-Secretary has said that she will soon have more up-to-date figures, based on the 1979 family expenditure survey. When will they be available? If the new figures show, as I suspect they will, that the situation has become worse since 1977, I hope that the Government will take urgent action.
The regulations describe the circumstances in which people are to be treated as being available for employment. Tribunals often misunderstand the type of work that people do. In my constituency there is a lack of understanding of the working conditions of miners. Tribunals may have recommendations from doctors in the mining areas who understand the conditions in which miners have to work in the pits, but they certify people as fit for work when they are not fit for that type of work. They may be fit for the work that we do in this pleasurable place, or that lawyers do in their offices. I should like some of the legal eagles who sit on the tribunals to be forced to work down a pit for a day or two, so that they understand the conditions, before they lightly certify miners as being fit for work.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will deny that there is a general directive from the Department to take people off sickness benefits and put them back to work, irrespective of whether they are fit for their type of work.
Regulation 1510 deals with uprating. Our discussions have been based on the retail price index. We have stated categorically that whatever lies—I am sorry; I must be careful what I say. We have said that whatever assertions to the contrary are made, even on the basis of the retail price index, the upratings are not sufficient. For the poor and the pensioners the retail price index is not right, because the essentials that form the major part of the budget of the poor have risen by more than the average commodity included in the retail price index. It is kept down by the fact that the price of luxuries, which the poor and the pensioners cannot afford, has not risen as much. The cost of housing—an increase in council house rents was announced earlier—and the cost of fuel and food has rocketed.
Studies show that the people who have suffered most in the last two and a half years under the Government's policies are those relatively poor people who live in council houses. The retail price index is inadequate as an assessment of the need for uprating.
The lack of understanding and awareness of Conservative Members of the real plight of the unemployed is appalling. The unemployed have already


had their unemployment benefit cut by 5 per cent. in real terms, and there is a further shortfall of 2 per cent. that will not be made good. Do Conservative Members know how people who have been unemployed for more than a year are living?
A month ago, on a Saturday, when the girocheques did not arrive for the people living in Patna, in my constituency, 24 men contacted me because they had literally nothing in their houses on which to feed their families. They were waiting for their cheques to arrive so that they could buy the groceries. I had to telephone the director of social work for the Strathclyde region to get him to instruct the social work department in Ayr to issue food vouchers to enable those men to feed their children.
That is the position to which the Government have reduced our unemployed people. Whether or not people in the Doon valley area have bicycles, they cannot find jobs. There are no jobs within reach of the area. Those people are being subjected to gross humiliation by the Government, and their plight will be made worse by the Government's failure to uprate the benefit sufficiently. That is the sort of humility that the country can no longer tolerate and that makes sure that the Labour Party will be dedicated to getting rid of the Government.

Mr. John Major: I wish to take up one or two of the points that have been made and in particular to raise the specific point of the calculation of capital resources for the purpose of the disqualification level of £2,000 for supplementary and other benefits.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) raised the pertinent question of the position of insurance policies that have a surrender value of £2,000 or more. I am greatly concerned to discover that such insurance policies are regarded as an asset that must be surrendered and cashed in, perhaps even at a substantial capital loss, because their value is not disregarded when calculating entitlement to benefit.
The hon. Gentleman asked on what authority such policies are to be included within the capital resources. I can only assume from a study of the social security regulations that it can be found in part II, paragraph 5 of the resources regulations—S.I. No. 1527. If that is so, I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's advice on paragraph 6 of the same regulations, which states that among the capital resources to be disregarded are
the value of any personal possessions except any which—… are in the nature of an investment.
I seek my hon. Friend's advice on the way in which an insurance policy is regarded. It seems entirely consistent with the philosophy of Governments over the years, admittedly to different degrees, that it is desirable for individuals to make the maximum degree of self-provision for their retirement years and for other circumstances. Successive Governments have provided tax incentives precisely and entirely for that purpose.
I appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, seeing you perched on the edge of your Chair, that I must restrict myself to discussing whether there should be consolidation of these regulations. Before we determine whether they are satisfactory for consolidation, it will be of interest to the House if my hon. Friend elaborates briefly on an important matter which has been aired already by hon. Members and

to which I add my voice briefly. I ask my hon. Friend to consider the possibility of disregarding the surrender value of insurance policies in future when calculating entitlement to benefits. Will she please give an undertaking that the Department will consider this issue? The present practice is grossly unfair and out of sympathy with the general trend of our philosophy over recent years, and it causes many people to feel great resentment.
I move on to slightly safer ground by directing my remarks to Statutory Instrument No. 1510. The present level of disregard of £2,000 could legitimately have been uprated under the present regulations. If that is not to happen under these regulations, I hope that my hon. Friend will give an assurance that she will consider in future whether the disqualification level can be subjected to annual upratings.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn the attention of the House to the first instrument on the Order Paper, Statutory Instrument No.1510. The Joint Committee recognises the enormous complexity of the regulations and it thought that the memorandum provided by the Department would be of help to the House and those outside in providing some authoritative guide to the instrument, which provides a useful background and encourages others to look to the House for information. That is why the instrument is before us.
The Joint Committee deals only with the potential ambiguities and the unusual use of powers that are contained in the list of references made by the House to the Joint Committee. It cannot deal with the merits of the references.
The Joint Committee has been concerned that any supplements to the social security law that are issued by the Department should be issued as rapidly as possible. There will be difficulties if there are gaps in the guide while the supplement is being issued following the issue of a statutory instrument. We have had correspondence and a memorandum on this issue only this week from the Department. We encourage the Department to issue its supplements as rapidly as it can.
We take the view strongly that when mistakes are made in instruments and instruments have to be issued afresh by the Department, the mistakes should be borne by the Department and not by HMSO. Naturally, HMSO does not want to bear the responsibility for the mistakes of Departments because it prints all the instruments. A number of mistaken instruments are issued each year by Departments and sometimes they have to be revoked and replaced by new instruments. The Joint Committee has drawn the attention of the House on many occasions to faulty instruments.
My attention has been drawn to the Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Regulations 1981 and the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations 1981. Both are consolidation measures. The explanatory note specifically says that they are consolidation measures. In both the instruments the explanatory note does not refer to any changes that are being made in the legislation. By and large the Joint Committee recognises the usefulness of consolidation measures.
A consolidation measure should draw together several instruments and thereby make it easier for the users of the instruments—there are millions of users of such


instruments—to wend their way through them. I hope that they will have to look at one consolidated instrument instead of perhaps half a dozen. In these cases, that is not so because the instruments that are repealed are often in parts, so those people will still have to wend their way through the instruments.
It has been said that if alterations have been made in the instruments—the Committee's attention was not drawn to any specific alterations—the primary legislation may require the social security advisory committee to be consulted. Normally the recommendations of the advisory committee would also be presented to the Joint Committee. If alterations were made in the two instruments that I have mentioned, a requirement of the primary legislation has not been carried out, so the questioning of the status of the instrument by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) is reasonable.
Nothing was drawn to the attention of the committee by our legal advisers, but I would be interested in the Minister's comments on the claim that the explanatory note may have been an interpretation by one of her offices. It is important that if a claim is made in an explanatory note the measures are purely consolidation measures, that should be absolutely, strictly and completely adhered to.
I now turn to two points on merits of the regulations which are separate from the Committee. In the Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Regulations, instrument No. 1527, section 7 refers to maximum capital resources, which have been mentioned by two or three of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major). There is little point in consolidation if the Minister knows that shortly there will be an alteration. The Minister has a committee of officials looking at that point at the moment.
We made representations on numerous occasions that the £2,000 limit should be increased because many people approaching middle age, in their 50s, are facing the grave and saddening possibility that they will not gain work again because of the recession brought about by the present Government's policies.
Many people in their 50s have said to me that they have been saving for their old age to try to make themselves a little more comfortable, yet after 12 months' unemployment benefit, they have only a few quid more than £2,000 which they were saving for their old age. They will not be able to claim supplementary benefit because of the limitation. The Minister says that she is considering that matter and that she must wait until the working party reports. I should have thought that that was a reason for not consolidating until the working party reports so that an increase, which I hope will be made, can be incorporated into the instrument.
If that is not so, there will have to be an amending instrument—yet a further cost in the enormous cost mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). Instrument No. 1527 alone costs £2·30. Even the smallest amending instrument these days costs almost £1. The cost of the instruments that we are discussing tonight is about £13. Therefore, clearly they are all beyond the reach of the people who most of all need the instruments to act as a guide and who sometimes need the information to challenge the sometimes rather offhand information that is given in DHSS offices. I say "sometimes"—not "always"—because many DHSS civil servants deal with numerous difficult cases with a fair

amount of sympathy and understanding. Nevertheless, we all know of cases where the information has not been properly and clearly given. I hope that the Minister will elaborate on that.
The Minister ought to recognise the cost and complexity of these regulations. She ought to help local authorities to provide guidance to assist people to make a claim. The local authority in Bradford circulated a large number of households within the metropolitan district at its own expense. There was a good response, with many people claiming as of right benefit of which they were unaware or hesitant to claim.
Of course, that campaign was of a limited nature. As we well know, all local authorities are severely limited in the amount of money they can spend. I therefore suggest that the Minister seriously considers making a modest grant to those local authorities, perhaps on a 50 per cent. basis, that are prepared to mount such a campaign. I dare say that they will be Labour-controlled authorities, but at least it will give people some idea of their rights.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I shall detain the House for only a few minutes. In a way, I wish to endorse the point that has been made by both sides of the House about taking into account the surrender values of life assurance policies under the Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Regulations.
I know that some people take the view that to take account of capital resources at all is unacceptable, but I contend that when limited resources are available for supplementary benefit there is no escape from looking at capital resources in some way.
As I said to my hon. Friend the Minister during Question Time the other day, to pitch the figure at £2,000 for 1981 is not being unduly generous. I am pleased to hear that a committee will advise her on whether there is a case for upgrading that figure. I certainly believe that there is.
A Labour Member indicated that there might be some uprating of the £2,000 under Statutory Instrument No. 1510—the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations. That is not necessarily the best way to deal with it. At best that would simply increase the amount by about 10 per cent., whereas the committee might well be persuaded that there is a case for a substantially greater increase, perhaps to £3,000 at least.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: There is a strong case for doing what the hon. Gentleman suggests, but since that committee has now been sitting for about five months we should surely have got the 10 per cent.

Mr. McCrindle: That is an arguable point. I feel that had there been a 10 per cent. uprating it might have persuaded the powers that be that the urgency of attending to this matter in the fashion that I have suggested could somehow be relegated. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is an open argument.
I come back to the point about the surrender values under life assurance policies. My hon. Friend is correct in deducing that the authority for this comes under paragraph 5(a) in part II of the regulations. Therefore, in applying the regulations in the way that they have been applied, and by taking into account a surrender value in excess of £2,000, the authorities are being perfectly correct.
I want to suggest a way in which—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will relate his arguments to Statutory Instrument No. 1510, as that is the matter now before the House.

Mr. McCrindle: I shall try to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the process, I shall show that although it is perfectly proper to take account of the surrender value in the way that I have suggested there may at some future date be a strong argument for taking account of the surrender values only where they do not relate to the systematic payment of premiums over a given minimum period. In that way we shall continue to take into account surrender values of £2,000 and over if they are the product of a tax-saving device, but they will not be taken into account if they are the product of genuine, systematic saving.
In that way, if I may relate my remarks to something that I said earlier, we would not run the risk of penalising thrift in the way that one of my hon. Friends accused the Government of doing the other day.
I end by saying that if we do that in relation to one form of systematic saving we may in future have to consider paragraph 6(c)(i) of the resources regulations and to take into account, as an exclusion from the investment aspect of the consideration before us this evening, the same sort of application where a person holds Build-up shares in a building society rather than an insurance policy. I appreciate that I am skating on rather thin ice in continuing along such lines, but I hope that I have said sufficient to make the House appreciate that the point is worthy of future consideration.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): This has been an interesting debate, ranging over a wide number of issues, some contained in the orders and some not.
I start by welcoming the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) to our deliberations. He will learn that a friendly rivalry goes on. We try to work together to improve regulations, although some people from outside the House this evening may wonder whether our efforts are worth while.
First, I wish to clear up the point that has been raised by many hon. Members about the consolidation orders. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for ringing my office this morning, although his telling me that the problem was in the first half of one set of regulations was rather like sending me through the haystack to find the piece of grit that he thought was there. He has no doubt given me plenty of food for thought during the day.
I shall try to explain what has happened and assure the House that these are consolidation regulations. They contain no new material. However, the matter is complicated and in trying to make it clearer I suspect that many people have misunderstood what is going on.
When I talk about the original single payments regulations, I am referring to those that we discussed in the House on 27 July last. Regulations 9 and 10 of those original single payments regulations have been reordered especially so that regulation 9, in the consolidated version, contains only the list of essential furniture and household equipment. That has meant that some reorganisation of the remaining provisions was necessary, especially

paragraphs (1) to (3) of the original regulation 9, which govern the entitlement to single payments for the purchase of items.
It is suggested that in doing so—that is the gist of the messages that have been going back and forth—we have changed the meaning of regulation 9(3), which is now, under Statutory Instrument No. 1528, paragraph 10(1)(b). For the benefit of those listening, I wish to go through original regulation 9(1) to (3).
Paragraph (1) provided that the claimant who had recently become the tenant or owner of an unfurnished or partly furnished home—I shall refer to him as a recent tenant or owner—and who satisfied one of the conditions in paragraph (2) was entitled to a single payment for the purchase of an item.
There are four alternative conditions in paragraph (2), but in the case of two of them, sub-paragraphs (c) and (d), a further condition has to be satisfied. In effect, he is not entitled if he moved into unfurnished accommodation when there was suitable alternative furnished accommodation in the area.
Paragraph (3) was plainly intended to cover—and, I say, did cover—other situations. The original 27 July version applied where one specified condition of paragraph (2)—namely, sub-paragraph (b)—was satisfied, or the item needed was a cooking or heating appliance, or the claimant was a squatter. As from 27 July this year, paragraph (3) was amended so that it could apply where another condition of paragraph (2) applied—subparagraph (c). That refers to claimants with no prospect of employment.
The House may recall that sub-paragraph (c) has a further condition attached. For example, where someone has recently become a tenant or owner he can succeed only if there is no suitable furnished accommodation available. That further condition was not imported into paragraph (3). It would, however, be nonsense to suggest that a recent tenant or owner who has no prospects of employment but does not satisfy that further condition could nevertheless succeed under paragraph (3).
Plainly, paragraphs (1) and (3) are mutually exclusive. Any other construction would render the original paragraph (1)(c) and its further condition otiose. A recent owner or tenant can succeed only under paragraph (1) and cannot benefit under paragraph (3).
I apologise for the fact that the matter is so complicated. I hope that when hon. Members read the Official Report they will follow what I have been seeking to explain to them.
I think it is clear that there was some confusion in the original 27 July wording. That may be the reason for the case in North Shields that was mentioned, and I shall be glad to receive details of it so that it can be given further consideration.
Our legal advice was that the proper construction was that a recent tenant or owner could succeed only under paragraph (1) and not under paragraph (3). In the consolidation the opportunity was taken, while reordering the provisions, merely to clarify the position. That is perfectly permissible within the terms of consolidation. I hope that that answers the point made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer).
Paragraph (3) of the old regulation 9 is now paragraph (1)(b) of regulation 10, prefaced by the words
the claimant has not recently become such a tenant or owner".


I hope that I have been able to assure the House that the consilidated version reflects the law as it was before consolidation. I shall look into any case brought to my notice by the hon. Member for Keighley or any other hon. Member. I do not believe that there is anything to worry about here. Does the hon. Member for Perry Barr wish to intervene?

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity. Under the previous regulation, it was possible for a claimant who was single and on benefit for less than six months to obtain payment for a cooker or a heater if he moved into a flat without one or both of those items. That was the position up to 23 November last. The position since then has changed, because a person in that position cannot now claim under either regulation 10(1)(a) or 10(1)(b). It is not possible for a person in that position to succeed in a claim.
A difficulty arose on Friday of last week at the Meadow Well community rights centre in North Shields. A single man on benefit for less than six months was refused payment for a cooker when he moved into a flat which did not have one. Under the regulations before 23 November, he would have got one. Everyone knew that; there was never any dispute about it. He will get it only when he has not recently moved. In other words, he has to live in the fiat, without the cooker, for an indeterminate period before he can qualify. That is the position under regulation 10(1) (b). He qualified before last Monday, but he does not qualify now.
The Minister cannot be expected to have all the necessary paperwork in front of her on the Floor of the House. I am not convinced, however, that a person in those circumstances—a single person on benefit for less than six months—will get payment for just a cooker or heater because they were separately itemised and because of the escape clause from the previous barrier in regulation 9. A person who moved into a place without those two items was getting benefit automatically under the regulations before 23 November. He does not get it now, and as the regulations are worded there is no way that he can get it.

Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Perry Barr for going into that case in greater detail. I am convinced, from the deliberations during the day, that there has been no change. One of the changes of the new supplementary benefits scheme is that the benefit officer is an adjudicating officer in his own right.
I cannot comment on the North Shields case without having the detail in front of me, but it would be wise to advise that an appeal is made on that specific point. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that that matter will be gone into in considerable detail. However, I am convinced from the way we went through the detail earlier in the day that there has been no change.
I give notice that if I have misunderstood the hon. Member for Perry Barr in any small detail, I shall return to the point. I am told that the gentleman concerned in North Shields will still qualify. However, I shall go into that, because I am sure that the position is as I had understood it, without knowing the detail of the North Shields case.
For the convenience of the House, I shall say a word about the resources regulations. That has been mentioned,

and ten pages of questions have been put to me, and we are rapidly running out of time. The resources regulations are purely a consolidation measure. The question that concerned hon. Members was resources regulation 13—now in Statutory Instrument No. 1527—which was formerly regulation 11(3) in the 27 July set of regulations. It relates to payments by liable relatives to be treated as income and taken into account in full. In particular, provision is made for the calculation of lump sum payments on a weekly basis where the liable relative is making no regular payments or where regular payments are insufficient to cover liability. That may not have been the point that Labour Members were raising, but we have gone through the whole matter in some detail and that is the only aspect that we considered might have been their concern on the resources regulation.

Mr. Rooker: Yes, that was our concern and, judging from the amending wording, the Under-Secretary has chosen one of two former interpretations. It so happens that the one chosen normally suits the Department, and that was considered to be a change. In a previous case Commissioner Rice said how vague it was, and that the interpretation normally all went in one direction—not in the Department's favour. The Minister obviously knows that that is not as black and white as the other case. Nobody said that it was, and I stated to her office that she has the point. We are concerned with the lump sum from a liable relative and how that is treated as income in the future.

Mrs. Chalker: Again, we have gone through this in some detail. At the time we discussed the Supplementary Benefit Aggregation Requirements and Resources Amendment Regulations 1980, hon. Members and those in another place expressed their concern about the intelligibility of the regulations. The consolidated version attempts to meet that point only by restructuring the old regulation in a way that clarifies the position.
I emphasise that the new regulations are no more than a consolidation of the existing law, and that they do not represent a change. However, I shall consider what the hon. Member for Perry Barr has said because I want to clear up any doubt that may exist about it.
I shall move on to the comments made by hon. Members in the debate and say something about regulation 15(10) which is under discussion tonight—

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 4 (Prayers against statutory instruments &amp;c. (negative procedure))—

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for us to have gone through the debate with the Under-Secretary answering only points that were raised earlier in the day, and not those raised during the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Standing Order on which this procedure is based states quite clearly that the debate must end at 11.30, and that nothing can be dealt with after 11.30. How the time is spent must be determined by those who speak.

Mr. Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order to ask the Under-Secretary to give an assurance that the detailed points that have been raised will be answered in writing afterwards?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not after 11.30.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — Derbyshire Royal Infirmary> (Neuroservice Centre)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. Walter Johnson: I wish to draw attention to the Minister's decision to transfer the neuroservice centre in the Derbyshire Royal infirmary to the University hospital, Nottingham.
The Minister will recall that a few weeks ago he met a deputation consisting of the chairman of the area health authority, three hon. Members, and the administrators of the area health authority and the district health authority. We were all convinced that we had made a very good case for the retention of the services in Derby. In fact, we were confident that the Minister would find in our favour.
All of us have been shocked to receive the Minister's reply to what we regarded as a very successful deputation. We were shocked not only by the fact that he has rejected our appeal but by the reply that we received, which we considered to be tardy and not to deal with the main issues raised with him by the deputation.
The Minister tries to minimise the effects of the change in his letter by stating that the regional health authority plans to retain 15 beds and specialised equipment in the outpatient department in Derby. Let me tell the House what the situation really is.
In the Derbyshire Royal infirmary there are 36 neurosurgical beds. In the Derwent hospital there are two neurosurgical beds. In the children's hospital there are eight neurosurgical beds. That makes a total of 46 beds. They are supported by up to six beds in the intensive care unit. If the neurosurgical provision at the Derbyshire Royal infirmary is transferred, the beds at the Derwent and children's hospitals will remain, but there will be no major neurosurgical operations at the Derbyshire Royal infirmary. The beds at the Derwent and children's hospitals will be used for investigations prior to operation and post-operative recovery.
It is envisaged that there would be one or two outpatient neurosurgery sessions per week, and to support these and the diagnostic investigations of inpatients at the Derwent and children's hospitals the present brain scanner and the specialised neurological and neuroradiological equipment at the DRI will be retained.
An important factor is that the consultants in neurosurgery would move their base from the DRI to the Queen's medical centre, which means a substantial loss of their presence in the DRI and day-to-day contact with consultants in other specialties—general medicine, general surgery, and so on.
The present provision is 16 neurological beds at the DRI, and it is envisaged that there will be a loss of one bed in due course. The consultants in neurology would transfer their base from the DRI to the Queen's medical centre. Again, that would mean a reduction in outpatient clinics at the DRI to one or two per week.
In addition to the loss of the presence, on a day-to-day basis, of the consultants in neurosurgery and neurology, there would be a similar loss of consultants in associated specialties, such as neuroradiology, neuroanaesthesia, neuropathology and neurophysiology. The loss of these


consultants represents a real loss in terms of expertise, which at the moment is readily available to consultants in all other specialties.
The net effect of this transfer of neurosurgery and associated specialist input simply means that the Derbyshire Royal infirmary would be regarded as a peripheral unit of the Queen's medical centre for these purposes and that there would be a consequent loss of status in the neurosciences to the DRI—a status that it has built up over the last 30 years.
In paragraph 18 of the consultative document on the proposed transfer of the neuroservices centre from the DRI to the University hospital, Nottingham, it is reported that the
Nottinghamshire AHA(T) have indicated that they would be unwilling recipients of the service, not because they do not want it, but because they consider the concentration of basic acute services in Nottingham to be a higher priority.
It is apparent that subsequently, however, following the Minister of State's visit to the Queen's medical centre last year, the Nottinghamshire AHA(T) reconsidered its previously expressed view, having regard to the criticism by the Minister of the inability of the Nottinghamshire AHA(T) to open further phases of the QMC. It is therefore apparent that the transfer of the neuroservices to the QMC was seen as a way of utilising a large part of the QMC and meeting to some extent the Minister's criticisms.
When we met him the Minister indicated to us that he was very concerned about the non-opening of certain phases of the QMC and wished to be persuaded by us against his then provisional decision that this unit should be transferred in order to open further parts of the Queen's medical centre. It seems, therefore, that this approach has overridden the views of a large number of the public in South Derbyshire, bearing in mind that of the bodies consulted by the regional health authority 29 opposed the proposed move and 19 supported the move—a majority of 10 in favour of retention.
In the report by the regional team of officers—a report that was considered by the regional health authority on 11 August 1980—the team's views are that the proposals are evenly balanced between transferring the centre to the QMC and leaving it at the Derbyshire Royal infirmary.
Against that background one is drawn to the conclusion that the Minister's decision has been very considerably influenced by the views of the consultants, who would prefer to move to the Queen's medical centre, where they would be in close association with the medical school and supporting facilities, particularly for research purposes. However, the AHA has consistently argued that there is really no reason why the unit should not be developed as a teaching unit in association with Nottingham university, whilst being retained in the Derbyshire Royal infirmary. Indeed, the authority suggested that a chair in neurosurgery be established to further develop these links.
The RHA's proposal to transfer the neuroservices department from the DRI to the QMC is against the established policy of the RHA, which is to secure the distribution throughout the region of sub-regional units in major centres of population. Derby is clearly a major centre of population. Indeed, the recent decision of the Secretary of State to establish a district health authority in South Derbyshire, for a population in excess of half a million, adds to rather than detracts from this argument.
I wish to draw my remarks to a conclusion to allow the hon. Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) and my hon. Friend

the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) to take part in the debate., because they were also part of the deputation.
Bearing in mind our representations to the Minister a few weeks ago. I am very unhappy with the reply that we received, which did not answer the very effective case put by the deputation. I believe that the Minister is swayed by the fact that the Queen's medical centre in Nottingham is not being used effectively, and that he has not looked at the issue in the light of those circumstances. The Minister said that he has made a decision. I ask him to look again at the matter before a final decision is made and, if necessary, to consult the Secretary of State before the move takes place.

Mrs. Sheila Faith: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) for allowing me to participate in this debate, which is on a subject that is most important to my constituents, too.
I agree with all the points that have been made by the hon. Gentleman. I think that I am even more disappointed than he is by the Minister's decision, because I have to face the fact that it is a Conservative Minister who has taken this wholly regrettable decision. I am joined in my remarks by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
Whilst Derbyshire is a deprived area in terms of health provision, the Derbyshire Royal infirmary is a beacon of light relieving an otherwise gloomy situation. It is one of the finest hospitals, and it maintains a very high standard. If ever there was an institution of proven worth it is the Derbyshire Royal infirmary.
On this point, I should like to refer my hon. Friend the Minister to the decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Science not to allow the Manchester local education authority to reorganise secondary education in that city because established schools would be damaged. The removal of the neuroservice unit from the Derbyshire Royal infirmary can well be likened to the removal of the sixth form from a comprehensive school, with all the diminution in status that would follow. It is surely the policy of a Conservative Government to preserve and not to damage in any way an institution that is giving such a wonderful service so satisfactorily.
In my privileged position as a member of the Select Committee on Social Services I have ascertained that the medical profession believes that specialised units should be established in district hospitals and not always placed in the teaching hospitals. It has been agreed by all that the dissemination of facilities would be of great value to doctors, nurses, patients and students; and yet here we have the very reverse process taking place. I hope that the Minister will tell us tonight that he will reconsider his decision and re-examine the facts.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: It falls to me to conclude the case for the prosecution in this sad business.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: What about me?

Mr. Whitehead: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I shall make three points in the three minutes at my disposal, after congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Derby,


South (Mr. Johnson) and the hon. Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) on their contributions. On this matter we are all at one in Derbyshire, in the area health authority and in the medical profession.
First, does the Minister agree that there should be a case—at both national and local level—for the equalisation of resources, where possible? Does he agree that that policy should allow those areas that are relatively deprived within regions that are relatively deprived to hold to those things that they do well? As the hon. Member for Belper said, they are—to cite the Manchester example in another sphere—of proven worth. Does the Minister agree that centres of excellence, such as the Derbyshire Royal infirmary is, and has been for many years in neuro surgery, should be maintained wherever possible? If the Minister agrees at the outset to those two questions, I shall find it hard to see what new factors came into his mind before he confirmed his decision.
In the Minister's letter to me, announcing that the decision must stand and that the provisional was to become the permanent, he adduced no further reasons to show why the arguments that we advanced in the deputation and beyond had not prevailed.
I conclude with my third point, which is plain. The undoubted sympathy that the Minister showed at an earlier stage has been overborne by the feeling that Nottingham and the Queen's medical centre have extended what Robert Ardrey calls the "territorial imperative". They have laid claim to facilities and have built more ambitiously and in a more grandiose manner than was necessary. Now that the National Health Service has fallen on hard times the Minister may feel trapped, and feel that he must fall in line with the decisions that have, in effect, been pre-empted by the building of these facilities at the Queen's medical centre.
We will not change the Minister's mind tonight. I wish that we could. His decision is profoundly mistaken. Perhaps we could at least have a reiteration of the fact that centres of excellence should be preserved and that the Department of Health and Social Security has learnt its lessons as a result of this dreadful business and will not look so favourably on ambitious schemes such as those launched at the Queen's medical centre, when it is clear that bad consequences—as well as good—will inevitably follow what the Prime Minister has done in that locality.
If we at least have that assurance, I for one will feel that this debate and campaign have not been wasted and that other centres of excellence, such as the Derbyshire Royal infirmary, may be preserved in future.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) for having brought this matter to the attention of the House and for putting his views of the case so fairly. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) and to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).
I strongly support the development and maintenance of centres of excellence. I appreciate that the Derbyshire Royal infirmary is a centre of excellence. However, I should like to ask hon. Members to assist us at times and to understand when we wish to resist the building of very

large hospital complexes, which often carry with them all sorts of implications for other hospitals in the surrounding area. We are discussing one such hospital tonight.
The deputation was very good and it was a very good hearing. I am only sorry that hon. Members feel as they do about the outcome. I am glad that I have listened to the speeches, since it has fallen on me to resolve this difficult decision. It was also my decision, on behalf of the Secretary of State, in the matter of the Derby health authority, so the same person has dealt with these issues.
I ask hon. Members to face what appears to me to be the reality. The question that arises is not whether a new unit should have been built at Nottingham, because it has been built as a major new centre for neuroservices associated with the university departments at a cost of £5 million out of the total of £39–8 million spent on the second phase of the Nottingham university hospital.
The present issue, now that the new unit, rightly or wrongly, has been designed and built, is whether it should be converted into some other kind of unit and whether more money that could be well used elsewhere in the Health Service should be spent to convert a unit that has never been used for the purpose for which it was intended.
If the decision is that the unit at Nottingham must go ahead, the question that arises is whether this will do great damage to one of the finest hospitals in the country, the Derbyshire Royal infirmary. This is a serious matter that needs to be examined carefully. Hon. Members have put forward a strong argument. If we were starting again, it would be right to consider other possibilities, but we are not starting again.
There is no question but that more neurology and neuroservices are needed in the Trent region. No one doubts this. The facilities will be available in Nottingham in 1983. If, on the other hand, they are developed at Derby, the cost, I understand, would be in the region of a further £4 million. This additional money would not be available for picking up. It would have to be taken from some other development in the region—by stopping, in fact, something else. To agree with what hon. Members have suggested would mean the spending of additional money. It would also be 1987 or later before the new services came into operation. Other capital projects planned for Derby would be likely to be delayed. It is not simply a matter of Derby or Nottingham.
The suggestion has been made at various times that the Trent region is sticking obstinately to a decision made many years ago. I do not accept this. In 1977, a working party containing a Derbyshire member examined the matter. Its view was that the unit should be developed at Nottingham. This report was circulated for consultation in September 1979. There were objections, some from Derbyshire, but at that time no counter-proposals were submitted from Derbyshire.
Because of the importance of the matter involving a change of use, the region, as required, put out a document for consultation in December 1980 taking into consideration comments and objections. Derbyshire health authority objected and this time submitted counter-proposals. Because of the conflicting views—the community health councils also objected—the whole matter came to me on behalf of the Secretary of State for examination. I was glad to receive the deputation the other day.
There are considerable advantages for Nottingham, Derby and the surrounding area if the unit at Nottingham is opened. It can be fully operational by 1983. At present,


I am informed, the combined Derby-Nottingham units have 80 beds, 48 neurosurgery and 32 neurology. The estimated need is 122 beds. By moving to Nottingham there would be 107 beds in all—that is, 27 more beds—64 neurosurgery and 43 neurology, of which 15 neurology beds would remain in Derby.
Later, the new unit will mean an increase in out-patient services. At Nottingham, facilities for neuroradiology will be increased for the whole region. There is already one CT scanner at Derby, which would continue, and there would be a second scanner at Nottingham—a new one. Neuropatholgy would be expanded. The neurophysiologist who is at present at Nottingham could move into properly equipped accommodation. It would also mean improved service in nuclear medicine. There would also be improved accommodation for paediatric neurology, and there would be a direct link with the medical and basic sciences—physics and biochemistry—in the university, which I am told would be of great value in providing a research background to the unit.
I am sure that hon. Gentlemen will agree, looking at the matter from that point of view, that this is good news for patients in the region as a whole. It has been put to me that Nottingham will be more available for a greater number of patients. I must be frank and say that I do not know that for a specialty of this kind I would put so much weight on that argument. Also it could mean an increase in travelling time for patients coming from Derby, as the hon. Gentleman told me with the deputation. Those are the arguments for Nottingham.
Clearly, improving the service and putting it at Nottingham should not be allowed to damage Derby. It is argued that there would be a damaging loss of prestige at the Derbyshire Royal infirmary. That is an important consideration. I understand why people in Derby feel so strongly about the matter. The Royal infirmary has a great reputation. As the hon. Member for Derby, North said, it is a great centre of excellence, it is one of our national centres, and it has done work of high quality over many years. It has great traditions which show in the pride of its staff and in the standard of care that it gives to its patients. So on every count it would be tragic if that reputation were damaged inadvertently.
However, if this move goes through, two good district general hospitals will remain in Derby. Additional money will be available in the near future for these hospitals—the Royal infirmary and the City hospital—which will mean exensive improvements and additions to the service there. Neurology will continue there. There will still be the 15 beds, of which 10 will be part of the regional specialty and paid for by the region. So finance will come from the region into the district health authority. The brain scanner which is there at present will continue there, and outpatients in neurology and neurosurgery will continue there.

Mr. Walter Johnson: I said earlier that I hoped that the Minister would reconsider his decision in view of the representations that have been made since, and also in view of our debate this evening. Is he prepared to give that assurance, and is he prepared to talk to the Secretary of State before the move actually takes place?

Dr. Vaughan: I shall continue, because I was about to say that although the work of the Royal infirmary will continue in other fields, we felt that the matter was so serious that when the papers were brought to me I went through them very carefully. I decided that it would be irresponsible to close down a completely new, unused department costing £5 million, spend more money converting it to another use, and spend more money elsewhere in providing the service which is needed. Also, I could not ignore the argument that new services are urgently needed in the region. I thought that it would be wrong to delay for another four or five years, if the move to Nottingham were stopped.
However, before reaching a decision, I was particularly glad to meet the deputation from Derby, and I was very impressed by the strength of feeling and the sincerely and deeply held views. So I promised at that meeting that, before coming to a conclusion, I would go over the possbilities again and see if some sensible way could be found——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve midnight.